The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent has been signified to the Street Trading Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 and the Electronic Communications Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. These Acts became law on 5 April 2001.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the current position in relation to foot-and-mouth disease.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The position in relation to foot-and-mouth disease has changed greatly since I last made a statement to the Assembly, and I would like to bring Members up to date on it and on my response to it.
Members will recall that I reported that we had received regionalised status for Northern Ireland. With some difficulty, we mounted a substantial exercise to seal off the Newry and Mourne District Council area against exports of relevant animals and products, and we seemed to be on course for full regionalisation on 19 April. Much to my dismay, we almost immediately became aware of a possible second outbreak at Ardboe, County Tyrone. There were some puzzling aspects to the symptoms, which made it possible that something other than foot- and-mouth disease was at work. As always, we imposed restrictions and carried out tests. On 12 April 2001 we received the results of the preliminary tests from Pirbright, which indicated that it was not foot-and-mouth disease. Members will recall that there was great public interest, and — as we have always done, and in line with my policy of openness — we announced that result, albeit with the reminder that it was subject to confirmation following other tests.
To my great surprise the results of those further tests, when received on Good Friday night, were positive, thus giving Northern Ireland a second foot-and-mouth disease case. As the Assembly will be aware, that was followed on Saturday 14 April by the discovery of a third case in Cushendall. Since then there have been other suspects, both hot and cold, but the situation on Friday last was that we had only the three confirmed outbreaks I have mentioned and three hot suspects. One was close to the Ardboe outbreak, one was adjacent to the Cushendall outbreak and the other at Ballintoy, County Antrim, was linked to the Cushendall case. The animals concerned have all been slaughtered.
As Members will be aware, the test results for the Ardboe suspect have now been received and have confirmed foot-and-mouth disease at a second farm in the area. This is now Northern Ireland’s fourth case. I still await the results relating to the Ballintoy suspect and the suspect case adjacent to the Cushendall outbreak. Late yesterday afternoon I received negative test results on other suspects at Limavady, Martinstown, County Antrim and Armagh.
As far as the confirmed outbreaks are concerned, the usual three and 10-kilometre zones are in place around all of these areas, apart from Meigh where the zones were lifted at the end of last week. All the in-contact animals are being slaughtered and incinerated, as are some other animals on a precautionary basis.
One encouraging aspect of this situation is that the testing of sheep flocks around the Meigh outbreak has indicated no evidence of residual infection in the remaining sheep. There is evidence that the present situation is a consequence of the virus circulating in sheep where the symptoms are not apparent. Consequently, I placed a complete ban on the movement of all susceptible livestock to allow us to carry out the necessary tracing of animals and to prevent further disease spread. I have now been able to relax that ban a little to allow movement direct to slaughter, and I hope to be able to ease it further very soon so as to allow some welfare-related movements.
I fully appreciate the impact that these restrictions are having on farmers, but I implore them to ensure that no unauthorised movements take place, however inconvenient or even painful that may be. Such movements have been responsible for introducing foot-and-mouth disease to Northern Ireland in the first place and have been instrumental in allowing its spread since then. The unauthorised movement of susceptible livestock is a criminal act which endangers the whole future of our industry, and it must stop. Sheep represent a dangerous threat, and it is essential that no movements of sheep occur in order to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.
My priority now is to find out the extent of the unauthorised movements that have already occurred. To that end I have made several well-publicised appeals for information and have written to every sheep farmer with a personal plea for information relating to purchases of sheep before the Meigh outbreak.
To deal with this situation I have established a contingency plan for my Department to ensure that it can cope should there be widespread further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We have acquired additional veterinary manpower by contracting private veterinary practitioners to carry out work for the Department.
Agri-food representatives have been fully briefed on the situation. The inter-departmental group of officials has identified additional Northern Ireland public sector manpower which can be mobilised if the need arises.
I have continued to have essential support from the RUC and the Army, and, as a result, the Army has been assisting with the disposal operation under Department of Agriculture direction. The police continue to assist with the checking of movements of animals, road closures, and so on. Representatives from those organisations are now based in Dundonald House.
I have extended serological testing to all sheep within the 10-kilometre zones around the outbreaks in order to determine the extent of the virus in those areas. I will be widening that exercise in due course.
Following what appeared to be a complete closure of the border to exports of all Northern Ireland produce on 14 April, my representations to the Dublin Department led to the resumption of permitted exports, although there were problems over the Easter holiday, and I subsequently discussed these with Joe Walsh last week. Against the background of evidence that lax observation of fortress farming principles by some has been partly to blame for these outbreaks, I have been trying to drive home the message that responsibility for disease control rests primarily with farmers. The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA) have been helpful in getting the message across. In fact, I have already initiated a four- week publicity campaign to emphasise that very point. We have been providing technical and moral support to farmers and rural communities by means of a helpline, counselling telephone numbers and local liaison channels.
I would like to say something about my Department’s slaughter policy, because there has been some public confusion about this. While no two cases are the same, the normal sequence of events is that all infected animals are slaughtered and incinerated on the farm. Animals on any outfarms of the infected premises are also slaughtered and incinerated on site. Next, pigs in the surrounding three-kilometre zone are slaughtered, followed by sheep in the surrounding three-kilometre zone and cattle in the surrounding one-kilometre zone, working inwards from the outer limits of the zone. Subsequent to this, any animals that are suspected of being at risk are also slaughtered. That means that when new outbreaks occur, the focus may shift from low-risk slaughter in one area to high- risk slaughter in another.
As far as disposal is concerned, infected animals must be incinerated on site, but other carcasses may be incinerated, buried or rendered, depending on the circumstances. There has been much discussion about vaccination, and some seem to think that it represents a quick and easy cure for the disease in individual animals — it is not. Current veterinary advice is that the immediate slaughter of animals around the location of an outbreak provides the best protection against spread of the disease. By contrast, vaccination takes several days to take effect, and it is a less desirable option. While it can, in certain circumstances, be a valuable weapon against foot-and- mouth disease, it has serious drawbacks. We must be prepared for further outbreaks of the disease in Northern Ireland, and the number will dictate the scale of the resource problems we will face when dealing with them. If there is a significant number of widely scattered outbreaks, the problems will be greater than if they were geographically grouped.
I have already outlined how I propose to deal with the manpower implications of any such spread, but as far as physical resources are concerned, there may be pressure on slaughtering capacity. I am in dialogue with the meat plants, which have offered to help establish options for a solution. There will be pressure on disposal capacity, and my officials are working with the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development to identify a possible site or sites for mass burial, should they be needed. The Executive Committee has declared its support, and I have been assured that any resources needed to deal with the problem will be made available. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Social Security Agency have been asked to examine any additional counselling and cash needs that they could help to meet.
In conclusion, the situation remains serious, and the farming community needs to take responsibility for its salvation. All my efforts and those of the Executive will come to naught unless all farmers take every step possible to protect themselves and their fellow farmers from this disease. Dealing with the disease will be a joint effort. As I have said, I will be carrying out serological testing, and I am acting to trace all relevant sheep movements. For their part, farmers must ensure that the virus is locked up by observing the movement restrictions that I have had to put in place. I again appeal to them to inform my Department, any public representative, the UFU or NIAPA of details of any irregular movements of livestock which they know about.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for her statement today. I want to ask her some questions about compensation.
What amount of money is set aside for the future? Where will the resources come from to pay compensation, and will the level of compensation remain stable throughout this crisis? Is the Minister satisfied that payments made to farmers in Meigh in respect of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak there have been based on genuine claims? What checks and balances, if any, are in place to guard against claims that could be made by those unscrupulous persons who have done real damage to the farming industry? Is the Minister aware of the serious difficulties on farms with welfare and putting cattle out on to grass, and does she realise that it is not enough —

Mr Speaker: Order. One must restrict questions to a reasonable number. If Members ask a series of questions, the Minister is under no obligation to reply to them all. It would be better if some opportunity to ask questions were left to other Members as well.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I accept that, but these questions are linked, and it is impossible to ask one without following up with another. This is a very serious crisis in the farming industry, and time must be allowed to let the Minister answer these questions.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is adequate time, but it must be available to all Members, not just to some.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr Speaker, I am afraid I did not get all the questions, because they were asked in quite rapid succession, but I will deal with those that I did get.
To date, £1·3 million has been paid out. That amount relates to the Meigh outbreak and the cull in south Armagh. The money will come from the Northern Ireland block. It is impossible for me to say how much will be required. Clearly, that is a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Department is abreast of the situation and will be taking account of the fact that more money will be required.
I missed some of the other questions. There was one about something genuine in Meigh, but I did not quite get the last bit of the sentence, so I cannot deal with it.
I am very much aware of the difficulties being encountered by farmers because they cannot get their animals out to grass. I am extremely anxious about that and am dealing with it urgently. In fact, my officials have been working on it over the weekend.
I hope to be in a position to allow movement across roads on to grassland by April 30, which is this day week. I want to be sure that when that happens, it will be under strict veterinary supervision and that there will be no possibility of abuse, of cattle coming in contact with land which has had sheep grazing on it in the last 14 days and of spreading the disease. For that reason my officials are working to put in place the necessary measures which will ensure that when it does happen, it happens in a restricted and very controlled manner. However, I am very much aware of the pain and difficulties being experienced because of this, and I ask those farmers affected to bear with me. If at all possible, I will allow that movement earlier — perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday of this week — but at the very latest by April 30.

Mr George Savage: I too welcome the statement from the Minister this morning and thank her and her staff for all the work they have been doing over the weekend. I have to come back to the matter of the movement of cattle across roads.
Stock has now been housed for seven months. Farmers have to keep to a tight schedule; they have to plan, and there are now only 25 weeks before livestock are brought back in again. I am speaking of three farms in particular. The Minister knows them very well, and they have to get their cattle out. I know she is aiming for 30 April, but I hope that the problem can be solved in two or three days’ time. I also welcome the involvement of local vets, because they have sound local knowledge. I urge the Minister to try as quickly as possible —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member to put his question to the Minister. This is an opportunity for questions not speeches.

Mr George Savage: The welfare of cows that cannot cross a road and horses that cannot be taken to vets’ surgeries is the problem that I am asking the Minister to take seriously here.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Savage for his initial remarks about myself and my staff, who have now been working overtime for a number of weeks. I appreciate the Member’s point about the need for planning. Some farmers have already run out of fodder, and if we knew how long this situation was going to last, farmers who have food would help others who have none. My officials worked over the weekend because of the urgency. At the very latest I hope that movement can be resumed by 30 April, and earlier if at all possible.
I understand the problems that people are encountering with horses. However, the whole community is encountering problems — and that is not to downgrade the problems of the farmers. For instance, there are problems in the tourism industry. My priority is to stop the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. This requires sacrifices, and I ask everyone to recognise that and bear with me. I am doing my best to get the balance right between risking a further spread of the disease and allowing for the alleviation of a serious welfare problem.

Mr Joe Byrne: I too would like to pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for the way in which they are managing this situation. Can the Minister tell the House if there are any investigations into the illegal movement of animals? Most decent farmers are disgusted that the spread of foot-and-mouth disease has resulted from illegal movement of animals.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Byrne for his remarks and for his question. Several investigations are ongoing, as are follow-up investigations and interceptions. Nineteen cases of illegal importation are being followed up and investigated, most of them by the RUC, but in three cases by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s own investigation unit. The vast majority of farmers are becoming increasingly angry with the very small minority who are putting them all at risk.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, I have stressed the need for an extension of the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) by going to Europe and asking for it, as has been done in the South. At the moment people who have leasing arrangements to make do not know if they can take land. People cannot get onto land to fill out forms. The Minister knows the difficulties that farmers will face if we find ourselves using the penalty system. This must be done immediately.
Members have already mentioned livestock movement, and 30 April seems a long way off if you have already run out of feed for cattle. Which is the greater evil — farmers bringing feed from 20 different sources or farmers bringing cattle across a road to be beside their farms?
Farmers will be asking those questions — they are critical. They are ringing the stress line now in a panic over the movement of animals. That has to be dealt with.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The IACS situation, of which I am very much aware, has been raised by the unions and many farmers. The cut-off date for IACS remains 15May. However, negotiations with the Commission are afoot for a 30-day window to allow changes without penalty. Normally there is a 15-day window for changes with penalty. Given the present circumstances, we are now negotiating for a 30-day window to allow for changes without penalty after 15May.
MrMcHugh also referred to the problem of feeding, which has been raised already. There are many evils in this situation, but the greatest evil would be the further spread of the disease throughout Northern Ireland. That is what I am trying to avoid. I am very much aware of the problem, and, as I have already said, I am trying to allow alleviation earlier than this day week if possible. I hope that it will be, but I cannot guarantee it — I am doing my best.

Mr David Ford: I too thank the Minister for the efforts that she and her staff have put into controlling foot-and-mouth disease over the holiday period. However, can she clear up a degree of confusion over the slaughter policy? I am glad she explained the way in which slaughter is carried out when there is an actual case. What is her Department’s slaughter policy where there is a suspected case? I know of at least one example where people were told that animals were to be slaughtered on their farms before being told they were not to be because of a suspected, as opposed to a confirmed, case on an adjacent farm.
Does the Minister believe that there is a case for further checks on roads, especially on the border with the Republic? Many people have commented on an anomaly in the full check applied when goods travel south, including bizarre examples of tins of food and unopened packets being confiscated by the guards. Given that there is a degree of concern over where foot-and-mouth disease may exist on this island, is there not a greater case for also checking northbound vehicles?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The slaughter policy in the instance of a suspected case is clear. Each suspect is looked at in view of the clinical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. In some cases the veterinary advice is that while animals may be showing clinical signs, they may not necessarily be signs of foot-and-mouth disease. Other circumstances, as happened in the Donnelly case, place a big question mark over whether an animal has foot-and-mouth disease. In such a situation, the veterinary advice is to place the farm under restriction until test results have been obtained. That is what we have done in all cases, and in some cases we have moved into slaughter immediately. We did that near the Donnelly farm in the Ardboe area where we slaughtered on a farm about three kilometres away because the animals were showing clinical signs. Moreover, it was in the vicinity of the outbreak already in Ardboe. Because of that it was a highly suspect case, so we slaughtered. As it turned out the test result, five or six days later, was negative. However, some you win and some you lose. There was a suspect case near Armagh city, and the vets, on the night that they did the clinical examination, advised me that we should move to slaughter the next morning. I agreed. When they examined the animals the next morning they discovered that they were responding to antibiotics, which indicated that it might not be foot-and-mouth disease, so we halted the slaughter. The Armagh case has now proved negative.
We look at all the circumstances. We look at the clinical assessment made by the vet, and we make a decision. The situation is such that sometimes we will get it right, and sometimes we will get it wrong. We will continue to err on the side of caution as we have done previously.
On the question of border checks, the Member will be aware that there are export controls on products exported from Northern Ireland — which is no longer foot-and- mouth-free — to the Republic. Therefore the strict controls are to ensure that no prohibited products get into the Republic. We do not allow meat products to be exported from here to the Republic. That is why people are having their cars stopped and are being asked whether they have food with them. It is because the Republic has been declared to be disease-free while we are not.
With regard to our own checks, we are targeting our resources where we feel they will be most effective. That is at the farmgate and in raising the awareness of people — particularly the farmers — to what needs to be done. We also must make the public aware of areas that they must avoid going to — for example, the advertisements that we have put in the papers today tell people what they need to do if they are organising public events and other such things. The recent outbreaks had nothing to do with border controls, rather they were to do with the unauthorised movement of animals.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I am sure the Minister will agree that over the last few weeks I have been fairly supportive of her and of the Department. I will continue to be supportive, because, as she said, we are all in this together. However, it seems that it is only now that we have good precautions in place at the ports and are taking blood samples from wider areas throughout the country. My criticism is that it has taken too long to get to this stage. The entire farming community has been held to ransom by a few, and we have many difficult problems with welfare in the country at present. Will the Minister promise to put in place whatever is necessary to ensure that in future we will be able to trace stock coming from across the water and from local areas much more quickly?
I am not so concerned about stock movement at this time but rather about the people who brought stock in over the previous months. It has taken weeks and weeks to get on top of this, and we need some structure in place to allow us to tie this up in a matter of days. We have it for cattle, and we need something similar for sheep. I hope that the Minister will promise to do her best to ensure something is done about this.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Douglas for his remarks and his support over the previous weeks and months. The precautions that we put in place at the ports were not put there just recently. Mr Douglas will be aware that the first step I took when foot-and-mouth disease was discovered in Great Britain was to close down the ports. That was an extremely important step at the time. We have had precautions in place at the ports. We have people handing out leaflets, and passengers are informed about what needs to be done. We have arranged for mats to be put on the boats, which people cross when picking up their vehicles or when boarding. I understand that the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee visited a port about a week ago and expressed himself satisfied with the precautions there.
We are now taking blood samples from sheep, because our vets have said that the recent outbreak has shown that the infection is present in sheep, which we were not aware of. It is very difficult to diagnose the disease in sheep. They can have the disease and recover from it without its being seen. However, they can continue to infect others. As I have stated, we carried out blood sampling in the south Armagh area, and that has been satisfactorily completed.
The other blood sampling is currently the most important part of my strategy in trying to get ahead of the disease. While the investigations that are being carried out and the information that is being sought are, in a sense, trying to catch up with where the infection may have gone, the blood sampling is a clear example of trying to get ahead of the disease before it gets any further and to establish where it is and where we can deal with it.
I take the point that the tracing of animals, particularly sheep, has now been identified as a serious issue. Although sheep flocks in Northern Ireland were tagged, sheep were not tagged at all in Great Britain or in the Irish Republic. We just tagged the flocks, not the individual sheep. The vision sub-group that I have asked to look at all the lessons to be learnt from this recent outbreak is urgently examining all the issues, including the tracing of animals, and will be reporting to me and making recommendations.

Mr Speaker: Contributions — whether they are questions or contributions to debate — ought to be made through the Chair. What that means, if Members are unclear about it, is that they should be couched in the third person, not in the second person. There are very good reasons for that, as I am sure Members are aware. Some Members are very attentive to this, but others have become a little loose in their application.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On 2 April, the First Minister assured us that there would be cross-border co-operation on the illegal movement of animals. Can the Minister tell us whether any resources have been committed to stopping the illegal movement of animals on both sides of the border and across it?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The attempt to stop the illegal movement of animals is being dealt with mainly by the RUC, which is assisting us through both static and mobile patrols. Over the weekend there have been six interceptions of illegal animal movements by the RUC, and prosecutions are being followed up.

Rev William McCrea: The Minister said in a previous answer that she believed that all the missing sheep that were roaming Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic had been identified. Does the Minister still believe that? Where did the flock that brought the infection to mid-Ulster, specifically to Ardboe, come from?
The Minister will also be aware that, because of a second confirmed outbreak in mid-Ulster, the area of Ardboe is gripped with fear. That fear is heightened by reports that animals have been buried in an area that is not on the affected farm. Surely the only way that the Minister and the Department of Agriculture can allay those fears, or bury the rumours, is to excavate that clearly identified site in the interests of the particular farmer and of the surrounding community.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I did say on a previous occasion that all the sheep that had come in to Northern Ireland since 1 February had been identified. That is the situation. We traced all those sheep and found that, as Members are aware, one consignment did not go to Lurgan Chilling as it was supposed to. That consignment ended up in Meigh and subsequently in the Republic. All those sheep have been accounted for and have been monitored.
We have now traced back to 11 to 19 January. We are going back beyond 1 February, which we believed was the first date when infection could be possible. To be sure, we are going further back to 1 January. Two thousand two hundred sheep were brought into Northern Ireland legally between 11 January and 19 January but were illegally traded. We are investigating that matter at the moment, and we will go back to 1 January eventually.
We have not identified the source of the infection in Ardboe, but we are investigating that urgently. It is not easy to identify the source of the infection. However, the sooner we find it the better. The second outbreak was on a farm adjacent to the Donnelly farm. It was disappointing but hardly unexpected given its proximity to the farm with the outbreak. Several allegations have been made; I have read them in the paper, and allegations have been made to my Department and to my officials. I assure Mr McCrea that all of the allegations are being investigated. Some of them have been found to be spurious, but we are following up and are thoroughly investigating every allegation that is made.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her statement. It is obvious that farmers appreciate having their own Minister of Agriculture, and we can see the benefits of that during this crisis.
Livestock farmers have reached the time of the year when livestock should be put out to grass. That cannot happen due to the ban on stock movement, and it creates problems for the breeders and finishers of cattle. We do not want to put others at risk. Can the Minister advise farmers how long they might have to keep their stock confined? Uncertainty causes concern. We know what the welfare problem is now: the problem of moving stock across roads — an everyday occurrence in the dairy cow situation — and the movement of store cattle to permanent grazing for the next three or four months. We do not want to see farmers moving stock unnecessarily and without control.
Beef farmers supply stock to abattoirs. However, abattoirs have been out of stock for six weeks. Could the Minister relax the rules in areas where there are no sheep so that beef farmers can avail of store cattle to keep the food chain going? Breeders’ farms are overstocked, and finishing farmers have no stock.

Ms Brid Rodgers: From today, I have allowed the movement of animals to abattoirs for slaughter. I have responded to Mr Savage and to other questioners about cattle moving to grass and across roads. I hope to be able to make an announcement next Monday at the very latest. I hope that it will be sooner, if I can get everything into place.
My advisors in the local veterinary offices are working with farmers on the problems of animal feed. Farmers are being advised individually as to where they can access animal feed.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I look forward to the day when the Minister will not be compelled to attend crisis meetings of the Assembly. Can the Minister advise the Assembly on the level of harmony that exists between Government valuers and the owners of culled livestock? Has any conflict arisen during the valuation process?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There have been problems inasmuch as farmers have expressed, as Mr Bradley will be aware, not so much dissatisfaction but confusion. They have sought clarification on what the compensation method would be.
In each of those instances I have been able to assure those concerned that my Department’s policy is that animals will be valued at what is considered to be full market value. That is precisely what happens in Great Britain and in the Irish Republic. Compensation will be paid. If a farmer has a concern about that, he has the option of asking for an independent valuation from one of three named valuers. In very few cases in recent times, if any — perhaps one or two — farmers have taken that option. That leads me to believe that there is no dissatisfaction with the present situation.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for keeping Members up to date with the foot-and-mouth crisis.
There have been reports that the amount of compensation being paid to farmers will be reduced. Can the Minister reassure farmers in the Ardboe and Antrim areas that they will not suffer any further loss, that they will be paid at a similar rate to those who have already been compensated, and that as the crisis continues, there will be no such reduction?
Will the Minister also take into account the situation that farmers are in? Normally, if a farmer sells animals at a mart, he or she can buy stock again and go back into farming. However, in this situation, farmers are receiving compensation for stock but cannot go back to farming and are not clear when they will be able to do so. Account needs to be taken of the fact that farmers will not be able to get an income from that.
Does the Minister consider the movement of animals across roads to be an illegal act? Can she clarify how one of our Committee members, Mr Gardiner Kane, was able to say at the Committee meeting this week that he had had to move his own cattle across the road and that the Minister would simply have to abide by that? Do some people have a special licence to move animals across the road while, for everyone else, such movement is restricted?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There is no question of the compensation policy being changed. It remains the same and will remain the same — that is, compensation at the full market value of the animal, as assessed by the valuer, with recourse to independent valuation if the farmer is not happy with the initial valuation.
I agree that the fact that farmers cannot immediately go back to farming is a huge disadvantage. Farmers will be in a difficult position, but it is an issue of consequential, rather than direct, compensation. It is not an issue for me to deal with, as I try to cope with the problems of eradicating this disease. I fully sympathise with the farmers in that position and the advisors on the rural stress hotline and in the Department — and I understand that the Department for Social Development is working at this also and has announced that it is setting up networks to help people in difficult situations. It is working to try to alleviate the very difficult situation that these people, who now have no income, are in.
I repeat that unauthorised movement of animals is illegal. This weekend there were six interceptions by the police, and prosecutions will follow.

Mr Jim Wells: The Minister has concentrated entirely this morning on the effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the farming community. However, she will be aware that many businesses throughout the Province have suffered greatly as a result of this crisis. Has any further progress been made on the issue of payment for consequential loss? Has any form of assistance been given to, for instance, hoteliers, riding schools and feed companies, which are incurring enormous losses as a result of this crisis? Has she had any discussions with her counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom? Has there been any progress on this important issue?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Wells for his question. He will understand that my responsibility as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is solely to the farming community. However, I am aware that other sectors are suffering as a result of the present situation. I assure Mr Wells that the Executive have discussed the matter on at least two occasions.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, is looking at how some measure of relief might be given to people who are suffering consequential loss. It is a very difficult area, because the payment of direct consequential compensation could be infinite. The Department of Finance and Personnel is looking at issues such as the deferment of rates. I hope that we will be bringing a paper on the matter to the next meeting of the Executive. I am aware of the problem, and the Executive are looking at it.
I had raised the issue at a meeting with the Prime Minister some time back when consequential loss was raised. I have made it very clear that in the area of consequential compensation — if it is agreed by the Treasury — Northern Ireland people should not be treated any less generously than those across the water.

Mr David McClarty: I thank the Minister for her statement. I want to take up the point made by Mr Wells. Since the last plenary session of the Assembly, a very responsible decision has been taken by the organisers of the North West 200 to cancel this year’s race on the recommendation of the Executive. As the event attracts over 100,000 people to the Causeway coast area, its cancellation will have a profound detrimental economic effect on those involved in the tourism and hospitality industries. Do the Minister and her colleagues have any plans to alleviate the hardship caused to those businesses by some form of business rates relief, as is the case in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr McClarty for his comments. I will take this opportunity to agree with him about the responsible attitude shown by the North West 200 organisers. I recognise that it was a particularly difficult time for them, and it was a huge sacrifice. The loss is in the region of £5·5 million to the local area. I am totally appreciative, as is the farming community, of the responsible attitude that they have displayed in the situation.
Consequential compensation is being looked at, and the Executive, on advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel, are looking at all possible ways to help people who have suffered loss as a result of the present foot-and-mouth disease situation.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I compliment the Minister and her officials on their sterling work during this major crisis. This morning she has talked about compensation, but farmers have expressed concerns regarding the compensation being offered for animals about to be culled. Can the Minister indicate whether those concerns have been addressed and have the fears been allayed?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr McMenamin for his remarks. Concerns have been raised at various times by groups of farmers in different areas. My officials have met with farmers on each occasion and have explained and clarified the situation. As far as I understand, concerns have been allayed and farmers have been assured that compensation will remain at full market value.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What effect are the emissions from culling pyres having on the environment? Given the forthcoming elections, has the Electoral Office been in touch with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to give directions on how members of the farming community should register their votes in order to protect themselves and their fellow farmers from spreading the disease? Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Murphy for his question. The first part of the question concerned emissions from culling — I assume that Mr Murphy was talking about the emissions from the burning of animals. As the Member will be aware, this issue has now been raised, particularly across the water. I will be in consultation with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of the Environment about the issues involved. I will be guided by those Departments in any recommendations that they may wish to make, given that, so far, we have burnt animals on site. We are working as an Executive and working in a cross-departmental manner; these are not issues for my Department but for the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. I will be taking their advice on those issues.
In relation to voting, I have had so many other things to think about that voting has been the last thing on my mind. Perhaps I should not be saying that, but that is the reality. Clearly it is, and will be, a serious issue. I have had no contact with the Electoral Office on this matter.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Is the Minister aware that the majority of decent farmers in Northern Ireland are resentful of the use of the word "rogue" when referring to any of their number? Can the Minister confirm that the rogues are those individuals who, in this instance, used an opportunity to distribute infected sheep brought into the Province under authorisation from her Department? Can she therefore confirm that the roguish activity conducted by these individuals, and its disastrous consequences, is an indictment of the Department — an example of negligence on its part by failing to ensure that sheep imported for slaughter were in fact slaughtered?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Kane for his comments. The vast majority of farmers in Northern Ireland are ordinary, decent people eking out a living in what is a very difficult way of life. Most people get Saturdays or Sundays off — unless you happen to be the Minister of Agriculture at the moment — but farmers do not get Saturdays or Sundays off. It is a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week job. It is not just their livelihood, but it is part of their whole way of life. They are going through a very difficult experience. The vast majority of them are people of integrity who work very hard. Yes, there are rogues, but there are rogues in every walk of life. I am sure that there are even rogues in politics.
Farmers are as keen to rid themselves of the rogues as the rest of us are, because the rogues are bringing the whole farming community into disrepute. That is extremely serious at the moment for the very many decent farmers, and I regret that it is happening. The last thing that I want to see is a few farmers — a few bad apples, as happens in every case — giving the whole barrel a rotten name. The fact that I have referred to a few rogue farmers is not in any way an indictment of the whole farming community, and I would be appalled if anyone would even consider that.
I take exception to the Member’s remarks in relation to the movement of animals and the fact that the whole thing is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Live imports into Northern Ireland are certified at the ports, and, under EU regulations, spot checks are carried out on their destination. The EU is a free market, and, therefore, it is not possible to do 100% checking. That would be against EU rules.
The reality is that some people broke the law; they abused the situation, and instead of bringing the legally imported animals to their legal destination in Northern Ireland, they took them to other places. We have been successful in tracing those animals and dealing with the issue. I absolutely refute the idea that is the fault of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that those animals ended up where they should not have been. It is the fault of those who acted illegally for whatever reason, be it small profit or large profit.

Mr Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister and her Department for their efforts in trying to control this disease and bring it to an end. I should declare an interest in the subject, as someone who assists on my parental farm on a part-time basis.
Is the Minister satisfied with the current level of fines imposed on the tiny minority of rogue dealers who have made illegal, unauthorised animal movements in Northern Ireland and have put our entire economy at risk? The Public Accounts Committee recently examined evidence that showed that there was a low level of fines for fraudulent agricultural transactions. Has the Minister any proposals to increase the level and severity of the fines? Has her Department been in contact with the courts in order to maximise the fines that are currently available?
Is the Minister aware of any investigation into illegal animal movements into my constituency of East Antrim, bearing in mind the outbreaks that have occurred in the Glens area?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I can assure Mr Beggs that the question of fines is under review. The Member will be aware that in all situations, much depends on the attitude taken by the courts. There might be a very high maximum fine, but it is up to the court to decide what the actual fine will be. I suspect that at this moment, the courts might take a very severe view of anyone who has been guilty of breaking the regulations or acting illegally.
Over the weekend the RUC intercepted illegal movements in six cases, and prosecutions will follow. I cannot say exactly where each of those took place or whether they took place in the Member’s constituency.

Mr Eddie McGrady: We all recognise the enormity of the situation. This Assembly and the community also recognise the total commitment of the Minister and her officials to resolving this problem, and it is our job to assist them.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the problems in rural mountain areas such as south Down, south Armagh and others, where the grazing of livestock always takes place across a lane or road from where they have been housed for the winter. That is a very important issue, and one which the Minister has already touched upon, but I would like her assurance of total security within this framework.
Additionally, there is the question of the horse-breeding fraternity. This is the time of year when mares must be moved if there is to be an end product at the appropriate time. The mares are now totally restricted and cannot be moved to stud. Can the Minister look at that as a matter of urgency?
There is also the question of horse racing. We know that both Downpatrick and Down Royal racecourses have heeded the advice of the Department. The meetings that have been postponed or cancelled are the total lifeblood of the end product of horse breeding in this country. Can the Minister give help or advice to the horse breeders?
Finally, regarding this statement, I was deeply concerned when the Minister said that any compensation funding would come out of the Northern Ireland block. I find this totally unacceptable when the Exchequer at Westminster has a multi-billion pound surplus. No sector in the Northern Ireland block should be put in this situation in order to pay such compensation. We should get extra funding from the central Exchequer.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr McGrady for his —

Mr Speaker: Order. Members should be aware that if I hear remarks made from a sedentary position, and I refer to them, they will be put on the record. If they are on the record and are critical of the Chair, then they fall foul of parliamentary procedure. Members need to be aware of that.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not normally take points of order during the question time. However, it is coming to a close soon, and I will take the Member’s point of order at that time.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr McGrady for his initial remarks. With regard to his comments about the winter house stock going out to grass, if I were in any doubt about the strength of feeling on the severity of this situation, the fact that so many Members have reiterated that point today clearly indicates just how serious the situation is. I am urgently trying to address it — I hope during this week but at the very latest next Monday.
In relation to the horse-breeding fraternity, I am also aware of its difficulties, particularly in getting horses moved to stud. I am addressing that issue at the same time and will be guided by the vets. I hope to be able to make an announcement on this very soon. With regard to horse racing, I will be guided by the veterinary advice on this.
Regarding compensation from the Northern Ireland block, I agree with Mr McGrady. It is my earnest wish that all compensation could and should come from the Treasury, and I will be making that case very strongly — in fact, I have already made it. I still hope that Her Majesty’s Treasury may top up the compensation money.

Mr Jim Wilson: I congratulate the Minister on the work that she and her Department are doing. I want to draw her attention to that part of her statement that deals with vaccination. She says that vaccination, in contrast, takes several days to take effect and is a less desirable option. It can be a valuable weapon, the Minister says, in certain circumstances but does have serious drawbacks. Is the Minister in a position to elaborate a little on what those circumstances are and also on what the drawbacks are?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Vaccination, as I understand it, takes a number of days to kick in and would not be an effective way of dealing with the disease at present. The longer you wait, the more chance there is of the disease spreading. The most effective way of dealing with the disease is to cull immediately — thereby killing it off. The serious drawback of vaccination is that it would blight our export trade. In Northern Ireland we depend on our export trade — for example, 80% of our milk product is exported, with 30% of that going to the Republic. We are very dependent on exports, and vaccination would have serious implications for the economy.
It would also mean that we would not be considered disease-free and would be considered as having an endemic problem of foot-and-mouth disease. Those are serious drawbacks, from the point of view of our whole industry.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the debate you called me to order for the way in which I was putting my questions. Why was that ruling not applied to everyone? I have been listening carefully. For instance, Mr McGrady asked three completely distinct questions. I asked only one question on compensation before moving on to welfare, but I was called to order. Why did that happen? Is there one rule for one Member and another rule for another?

Mr Speaker: The answer is simple. I was counting the number of questions that you asked, and, when it came to six or seven, I intervened. A Member might say that he had asked one question with six or seven parts or legs to it; that would be a matter for judgement. I counted some six or seven questions before I intervened. The Member then moved on to the question on welfare. Mr McGrady asked three questions — or perhaps four — but not six or seven.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We will see the six questions in Hansard tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: I did not quite catch what the Member said. Not all the Member’s questions were answered. As I advise the House generally, the greater the number of questions asked of a Minister by one Member, the less likely it is that every question will be answered. It is much more likely that questions will be answered in full if fewer questions are asked. One cannot force Ministers to answer questions, as the Member knows from the House of Commons. One must simply put the questions.

Rev William McCrea: An hour was set aside for questions this morning, and we did not take up all of that hour.

Mr Speaker: The Member is incorrect. Standing Orders require that not more than an hour be taken. There will now be a further statement on foot-and-mouth disease to which, I have no doubt, the Member will wish to attend fully, as will the rest of the House.

Agriculture (Foot-and-Mouth Disease): North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Ms Brid Rodgers: I should like to report to the Assembly on a special meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format held in Dublin on Friday 6 April 2001. Mr Sam Foster, Minister of the Environment, and I attended the meeting, and the Irish Government were represented by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. It was the third meeting of the Council in that sector, and it was exclusively devoted to foot-and-mouth disease and the efforts to combat its spread on the island of Ireland.
The Council received an update on the situation and acknowledged with gratitude the part played by so many people — North and South — in guarding against the spread of the disease by following the respective guidelines and acting responsibly. The Council fully understood the difficulties being experienced by agriculture and other sectors of industry and acknowledged the reasons why both Administrations were keeping restriction measures under continual review. It was hoped that, in the light of the determined manner in which the outbreak was being tackled North and South, the scale of the difficulties would be kept to a minimum and that that approach would bring real benefits to everybody in the long run. Ministers reiterated their personal determination, and that of their respective Administrations, to ensure that everything possible would be done to alleviate the difficulties.
Acknowledging that both Administrations attached the highest importance to animal health, the Council again underlined the value of enhanced co-operation on the issue. The Council noted that since the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, collaboration between the two Administrations had intensified, with the primary purpose of containing and eradicating the disease. It emphasised that the events of recent weeks illustrated the importance of an island-wide approach to such issues, and it agreed that sustained co-operation between the two Administrations was essential to reduce the risk of further spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
The Council therefore agreed that both Administrations should continue to: closely monitor the situation in their respective herds and flocks; exchange all relevant information in respect of animal movements; strongly encourage the public — particularly the farming and agri-business community — to continue to follow the advice being given to prevent any spread of the disease; review the activities that might be resumed and the conditions under which such resumption might be permitted; liaise closely in the prevention of the importation of susceptible animals from Great Britain; maintain co-operation in ensuring that proper disinfection arrangements are applied at all entry points to the island; monitor ongoing developments in respect of cross-border issues; and maintain liaison with the port and other authorities in Britain to ensure that appropriate disinfection procedures are maintained at ports and other exit points from Britain to this island.
The Council decided that officials of the two Agriculture Departments should develop a strategy for the control of animal movements on the island of Ireland, drawing on work done in both jurisdictions. It also decided that in the light of the experience gained from the current foot-and- mouth disease outbreaks, officials should consider the means of prevention, containment and eradication of future epizootic disease outbreaks on the island.
The Council requested that the officials report back to subsequent Council meetings in the agriculture sector. The Council agreed that the next meeting of the agriculture sector would take place in the South in June 2001. Following the meeting a joint communiqué was issued. A copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Derek Hussey: Mr Speaker, I hope you will understand the difficulty that one has in responding to the second statement without making reference to the first. I thank the Minister for her statement. She rightly said that the Administrations are ensuring that everything possible is being done to alleviate the present difficulties. The House has heard of roguish actions having been being carried out, but that is an erroneous term. Deliberate illegal actions or actions of — at the very least — economic terrorism are being carried out.
What is being done on a North/South basis to address that issue? The Minister talked about the lax observation by some and the evidence — not reports or perceptions — to that effect. Will the Minister outline the sort of lax observation being talked about and tell the House who the "some" are?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Governments North and South are continuing to share information about their investigations, and some of the lines that we are following with a view to prosecution are as a result of shared information between the two jurisdictions.
Will Mr Hussey repeat the other part of his question?

Mr Derek Hussey: Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I said that it was difficult not to relate the Minister’s two statements. The Minister mentioned lax observation by some and said that there was evidence of it. I asked her to reveal to the House the type of lax observation that there is and who the "some" are that there is evidence against.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Hussey for that clarification.
In my original statement — and I am not sure that I should be responding to it now, but I will indulge the Member — I referred to lax observation of fortress farming by some farmers, and I emphasise the word "some". The people delivering census forms are arriving at avenues and lanes in the country, but how are they to know whether they are at a farm if there is not a foot-and- mouth notice warning people to keep out? Lots of people live in the country but do not farm. Some people are not observing all of the advice that has been given about fortress farming, and that is what I referred to in my statement.

Mr P J Bradley: Can the Minister assure the Assembly that no four-footed animals of any kind are being imported from GreatBritain or Europe on to the island of Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Not all four-footed animals are susceptible. Horses are not susceptible, but there is always the danger that they will carry the disease if they have been in touch with susceptible animals. I can speak only for NorthernIreland; I cannot speak for the Republic of Ireland on the four-footed animals that are allowed on to that part of the island of Ireland. However, I assure MrBradley that no four-legged susceptible animals are getting into NorthernIreland.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: What discussions has the Minister had with the Dublin Government about smuggling? Can she confirm if any of the 19people who are under investigation by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are also under investigation in the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic? Have any of those people been paid compensation or sought an amnesty from either Government? Has the matter been raised and discussed by Ministers? Has any compensation been paid from departmental money to those who have sought an amnesty or are under investigation? If so, what advice has she received from the Dublin Government?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The 19 cases that I referred to are being prosecuted by the RUC in NorthernIreland. Three cases are being dealt with by the veterinary investigation unit. I cannot speak for what is happening in the South, because I do not have the information here. However, I assure the Member that any information that we receive is shared with the Republic. I would be very surprised if it is not being followed up, because the Republic is taking a very hard line. It has already changed its legislation, and we are now looking at changing ours.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has not offered or considered giving amnesty at any stage to people who have acted illegally. The compensation already paid out has been paid in the south Armagh cull area and the Meigh area where there was a precautionary cull of infected animals. No compensation was paid in at least two cases where the people involved were guilty of illegal activity. That is the policy.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What animals are considered susceptible, and what animals continue to be imported from Britain? Will the Minister comment on the continued criticism from the Government and media circles in the South on the disparity between the approach to prevention and eradication by the Department in the North and the Department in the South? Will the Minister assure us that her Department operates on the same philosophy as the Southern Department? The priority is to eradicate the disease rather than take the London line which appears to be damage limitation and give the impression that things are OK. The priority is to eradicate the disease as the Southern Department is doing.

Ms Brid Rodgers: No susceptible animals or horses from Britain are allowed into NorthernIreland. The susceptible animals are cows, pigs, sheep and goats. Horses are not susceptible. However, if they are in touch with those animals, they can be a danger, and they can carry the disease.
With regard to eradication of this disease, I am pleased to clarify the confusion raised by some recent remarks. At my meeting with Joe Walsh last week I also clarified the fact that our policy on dealing with suspect cases is based on our commitment to eradicate the disease and to err on the side of caution and cull if there is a doubt in our mind about whether the disease is present.
Our policy is exactly the same as that in the Republic. When we come across a suspect case, the vets make a judgement as to whether it is likely to be foot-and- mouth disease or whether there are other circumstances that point to its not being. If there is less concern about it, we restrict the farm until we get the result. If there is more concern, we err on the side of caution and we cull. That is precisely what happens in the South. I am aware that, for instance, last week there was a suspected case in the South, and they restricted the farm but did not cull. In one case in Armagh we decided to cull, then changed our minds on foot of further evidence. As it happened, we were right, because the result was negative. From the beginning, my priority has been to eradicate the disease.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her statement and take this opportunity to reiterate the value of the North/South Ministerial Council. At a time when this whole island is under serious threat from a deadly animal disease, joint action is being taken to halt this plague. That can only be welcomed by every right-thinking person. I also point out that that special meeting was called — and rightly so — to show the determination of both Governments to tackle this serious problem.
How quickly will the strategy for the control of animal movements be agreed and in place? Has the Minister any plans to tighten the regulation on the individual tagging of sheep?

Ms Brid Rodgers: We will certainly look at the tagging of sheep. A subcommittee of the vision group is already working on the lessons to be learnt from the present situation. That issue is being looked at, and recommendations will be made. I will be very surprised if movement is not made in that direction. I also understand that the view of the Republic is to move towards individual sheep tagging.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will there also be control of animal movements?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I believe that the Member was talking about movements across the border, rather than within Northern Ireland. We will be looking at how we can co-ordinate our efforts and our legislation, initially to minimise the incentive for that type of movement as well as to deal with it.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr George Savage: I thank the Minister for her comments on the North/South meeting. One point was that both Administrations should continue to
"maintain co-operation in ensuring that proper disinfection arrangements are applied at all entry points to the island".
At the Committee meeting last week it was said that automatic demisters were to be installed. Can the Minister tell me when that will happen?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Automatic sprayers — not demisters — are to be installed, and we have been working on that for some time. I cannot give the Member a definite date, but I imagine that it will be before the end of this week. At the time of my last enquiry, it was a matter of sorting out the contract — the sprayers have to be made to specification to fit the vehicles — but I expect that they will be installed very soon. Automatic sprayers are not an improvement in the controls, but they need very little manpower and will simply allow us to use necessary resources elsewhere.
12.00

Mr Tommy Gallagher: In today’s statement there is a recognition of the difficulties faced by the Department of Agriculture and other sectors. I want to ask about a sector which has been particularly hard-hit in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Retail outlets in that area rely on customers from the Republic of Ireland for a large proportion of their business. That is true in towns such as Aughnacloy, Augher, Belcoo and Belleek. The traders in those towns purchase milk and dairy produce from suppliers in the Republic of Ireland. However, when customers from the Republic purchase supplies in those areas — and I am sure this happens in other constituencies — under present restrictions they are not allowed to take those supplies into the Republic. This has led to a marked drop in trade for these retailers, and it seems that the local authorities are being far too diligent. Will the Minister raise this matter with the Minister in the South, and will she continue to press for more sensible arrangements to be put in place? Of course, such arrangements would be in line with the necessary precautions to prevent any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have been made aware of the issue and have raised it with Joe Walsh, who assures me that this is being dealt with. I am also aware of the fact that Easter eggs were removed from people crossing the border; that was over-diligence. A number of issues arose over the Easter weekend, but Joe Walsh has assured me that they have now been dealt with.

Mr Paul Berry: From the Minister’s statement I noticed that the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, which she attended on 6 April, was exclusively devoted to the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Were concerns raised at that meeting about grants, subsidy and inspection staff in Northern Ireland being ordered off a cull site when fraud was being investigated and exposed? Were concerns expressed that it was not a so-called farmer in south Armagh who ordered those staff off the site, but a veterinary officer?
Are the Minister and the people who attended that meeting on 6 April not concerned that there may be members of staff in the Department of Agriculture who are aiding and abetting smuggling in south Armagh?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The matter was not raised at the North/ South Ministerial Council meeting for the simple reason that it was not an issue. There is no truth in the allegation, and I have to refute the suggestion that grants and subsidy staff were ordered off the cull site. I have thoroughly investigated the allegations made and am satisfied that the implication that staff were somehow involved in collaboration with illegalities is most certainly not the case.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A LeasCheann Comhairle. It is welcome to have these discussions taking place on an all-Ireland basis, particularly with regard to the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
In the Minister’s discussions with the Minister in the South, has it been suggested that the controls and traceability systems for livestock and food production should be harmonized on an all-Ireland basis? Given that the disease affects both parts of the island, has an all-Ireland approach to determining, through an inquiry, the cause and impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak here and in the South been discussed?

Ms Brid Rodgers: An official working group is examining the matter of tracing to which Mr McHugh referred. I have clearly indicated that we are taking an all-island approach through our use of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Council has already been described by Mr McCarthy as a very useful way of dealing with this outbreak — it has been co-ordinating, where useful, our efforts and exchanging and sharing information. This is helping us, on both sides of the border, to deal with what is an all-Ireland animal health problem. As the Member may be aware, as early as last November the North/South Ministerial Council set in train working groups to look at harmonised animal health strategies on the island of Ireland as a whole. At that stage, of course, there was no indication that we were going to witness this crisis, but we were already recognising that animal ill-health, infections and viruses do not recognise the border.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On the question of North/South co-operation, it is important that Members compare the compensation paid to farmers affected by foot-and-mouth disease in each of the neighbouring jurisdictions. Will the Minister undertake to publish details of the compensation awards made so that Members can monitor those payments and assess if payments made here are comparable to those made in the Irish Republic?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Throughout this unfortunate incident, I have operated on an open and accountable basis. I do not think that anyone would expect a Minister to operate in any other way, but, of course, any necessary details will be put in the public domain, and I expect that they will be thoroughly scrutinised. I simply reiterate that compensation has been, and will continue to be, made at full market value. I cannot say if the market value in the Republic is the same, higher or lower than the market value here. However, we will be paying to farmers the full market value for Northern Ireland animals in Northern Ireland.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the North/South co-operation on foot-and-mouth disease. Does she consider that co-operation on the future operation of cattle marts and the movement of animals could be necessary? Has the Minister any view on the opinion that meat plants should conform to the strictest possible monitoring of all animals that are presented for slaughter?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The sub-committee of the vision group which is looking at the implications of, and the lessons to be learnt from, this whole episode will be examining the operation of the marts, as well as every other aspect of the industry. I am certain that the North/South Ministerial Council will hold discussions to try to share our experiences, learn lessons from each other and, if necessary, co-ordinate our activities.
In Northern Ireland our veterinary inspectors inspect everything that arrives in and goes out of the meat plants. That is very carefully monitored. I cannot speak for the Republic of Ireland and how they operate there. Clearly, every section of the industry needs to ensure that it is operating in an open, transparent and correct way.

Mr Oliver Gibson: What arrangements are being made for my constituents in West Tyrone? Directly or indirectly, they have been distressed financially. As the Social Security Agency’s personnel cannot visit due to foot-and- mouth disease and our constituency offices are being used as form-filling centres, that distress is compounded. Can the Minister assure us that some arrangements will be made for the immediate payments of much needed distress funds?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I understand that there is a great deal of distress as a result of the present situation, and I sympathise with those concerned. The Member will be aware that the payment of social security is not a matter for my Department but for the Department for Social Development. I understand that arrangements have been made to deal with that problem. Clearly I am not in a position to answer that question, but perhaps Mr Gibson could address it to the Minister for Social Development.

Mr Alan McFarland: I thank the Minister for her report. Did she see a report in the ‘Sunday Tribune’ at the weekend which states that some 15,000 sheep were imported from Longtown into Northern Ireland in the first seven weeks of the year? It is thought that a number of these have gone south. Indeed, the junior Agriculture Minister, Noel Davern, says that he is expecting a sizeable number of prosecutions. Hundreds of these sheep are unaccounted for.
‘Private Eye’ magazine has a record for whistle- blowing and being proven correct. Has the Minister seen an article in that publication which states that foot-and-mouth disease was rampant in the national flock in Britain in January? If these articles are correct, we would appear to have a sizeable problem here. What credence does the Minister give to these allegations? When does she expect the missing sheep, in both North and South, to be identified?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I suspect that we are moving into the business of the last session rather than continuing with the business of the present one. This session concerns my statement on the North/South Ministerial Council. I am quite happy to respond to those questions if they come to me during the debate, or even by way of a written reply. I have no difficulty in answering them, but we should stick to the rules.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have been quite lax with Mr McFarland. If he wants to write to you, I am sure he will receive a response.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Can the Minister assure the House that the importance of animal health is acknowledged by both Administrations? There may be product coming from another country through the Republic into Northern Ireland and placing the Province’s farming community in jeopardy.
We know nothing about unaccounted sheep that could have slipped into the Irish Republic before 1 February. There could be foot-and-mouth disease or some other problem down there, and it could slip into Northern Ireland. I would like an assurance that everything is being done along the border to ensure that nothing is happening that will jeopardise our farming community.

Mr Donovan McClelland: May I again remind Members not to repeat questions that may previously have been answered, partially or totally.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Animal imports from the Republic of Ireland are not the problem. We have four outbreaks in Northern Ireland, so the problem is vice versa. However, we are enforcing the controls, and the hypotheses about unaccounted sheep are endless. We will continue to monitor and scrutinise every situation where there may be a possibility of the disease’s either being brought in or spreading further in Northern Ireland, or on the island of Ireland for that matter. Our priority is to contain the disease and then eradicate it.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate her and her officials on all their recent hard work.
I am particularly pleased to see a strategic approach to animal movement and the prevention and containment of disease. Does the Minister agree that this not only underlines the need for cross-border co-operation but points to the need for even more serious steps for agriculture in general?
I am at something of a loss. Before the Speaker left the Chair he indicated that although six minutes were left, he would not take my question then but would allow me to ask it later on the back of this statement. I suppose I could dress it up by asking the Minister if, given her relationship with her counterpart in the South, she has been offered any assistance with the problem of sheep movement. Is she aware of the growing welfare problem in my constituency — malnutrition and death among lambs because of the shortage of green grass grazing? There is virtually no substitute for fresh green grass to provide the quality of nursing milk that lambs need. The Minister has already indicated that sheep movement does present a particular problem. Can we make progress on this as quickly as possible?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will leave it to the discretion of the Minister whether she answers the Member’s question.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr ONeill for his initial comments and his remarks about the need for a more strategic common approach to agriculture on the island of Ireland. Agriculture is the one area with the clearest commonality of interest, North and South and within the North/South Ministerial Council. In conjunction with JoeWalsh, I have been moving to strengthen the co-ordinated approach on the island to animal health and other related agricultural areas.
I have dealt with the welfare problem on a number of occasions, and I refer Mr ONeill to my previous responses.

Mr Edwin Poots: Bearing in mind that the discussion was solely on foot-and-mouth disease and that the disease was brought in through smuggling, was that issue discussed at the North/South meeting? Were the issues of herds with alarmingly large numbers of twin births in the Irish Republic and of dealers who buy large amounts of calves and cattle into their herds, which subsequently disappear, discussed? Was the Republic of Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development aware that farmers who were involved in the sheep smuggling that brought foot-and-mouth disease in had requested an amnesty? Was it also aware that some of those people were subsequently paid large sums of money for hauling livestock to the cull in Newry?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Poots for his question. I am afraid that I did not hear the last part. Regarding the issues specifically raised at the meeting, we agreed to continue to share information on all illegal activities, which involves smuggling. We have been doing that from the beginning, and we will continue to do so. It is perhaps as a result of that that some of the investigations in the South have proved so fruitful.
I could not possibly comment on an amnesty in the Republic of Ireland. I know nothing about it. You would not expect that to be discussed at our meeting, because whatever they do in the Republic is a matter for them.

North/South Ministerial Council: Special EU Programmes

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members, I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on special EU programmes held on 9 April 2001.

Mr Mark Durkan: I should like to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the special European Union programmes sector held in Dublin on Monday 9 April 2001, which Mr Dermot Nesbitt and I attended. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Charlie McCreevy TD, Minister for Finance. The report has been approved by Mr Nesbitt and is also made on his behalf.
The Council welcomed the recently appointed chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), Mr JohnMcKinney, and recorded its appreciation of the contribution which MrPhilip Angus had made during his time as interim chief executive.
The chief executive gave a presentation on the progress made by the Special EU Programmes Body since the last meeting in that sector on 15November2000. He identified progress made towards the development of a strategic plan that will enable the body to fulfil its mandate. The Council was pleased to note the work in progress and the evolving structure of the SEUPB.
The Council agreed that the various programmes within the remit of the body had a major role to play in the development of peace and reconciliation and economic and social progress on the whole island, particularly in the border areas. The Council highlighted the importance of the chief executive’s role in that respect and looked forward to working closely with him in implementing those important tasks.
The Council received a report on proposals for a revised staffing structure for the body that had emerged as the result of a review carried out by external consultants. The Council acknowledged that, while an initial staffing structure had been agreed at the sectoral meeting on special EU programmes in June 2000, it had been agreed that that structure would have to be reviewed as the body developed and its responsibilities became operational.
The Council agreed that it was important that permanent staff be appointed as soon as possible and stressed the need for the body to secure value for money by ensuring an appropriate level of staff at the minimum cost to the public purse.
The Council noted that the proposals for a revised staffing structure were now the subject of an urgent full structural analysis and job evaluation, and it approved the immediate recruitment of five new posts, the cost of which would be met from the SEUPB’s approved budget for 2001.
The Council received a report on the outcome of the public consultation on the draft Equality Scheme which the body had drawn up in accordance with its statutory responsibilities under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Council stressed the importance of the application of the principle of equality of opportunity by the body in all areas of its work, and it approved the submission of the draft Equality Scheme to the Equality Commission.
The Council considered the draft targeting social need action plan which had been prepared by the SEUPB in accordance with the requirements of the New TSN programme. The draft plan, which outlines how the body proposes to conform to the principles of New TSN, was approved by the Council as a basis for consultation during April and May 2001. The Council looked forward to the outcome of the consultation and to seeing the final draft of the plan at the next North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on EU programmes.
The Council received a report on the progress of negotiations on the Peace II operational programme and programme complement since the last sectoral meeting on EU programmes on 15 November. The Council was pleased to note that negotiations on the Peace II programme were now complete, and it welcomed the formal approval of the programme in Belfast on 22 March during the visit of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Michel Barnier. The Council noted the progress made by the SEUPB on the programme complement and that a draft of the programme complement would be put to the Peace II monitoring committee at its next meeting.
The Council stressed the need for the monitoring committee to be given every support in discharging its responsibilities so that it can give careful consideration and agreement to the programme complement as soon as possible. The Council urged the body to ensure that funding comes on stream in the very near future.
In the context of the Peace programme — in particular, the cross-border elements of the programme — the Council indicated that it would expect to hear about progress on the common chapter at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in this format.
The Council received a report on the new partnership arrangements being put in place in Northern Ireland to further develop partnership-working at local level by establishing more effective mechanisms to reinforce and extend the social partnership model and to make it sustainable beyond the lifetime of the Peace II programme. The Council noted that a new regional partnership board, chaired by the two junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is being created and that the SEUPB will provide the secretariat for that new board. This will help to achieve co-ordination between the roles of the body in relation to priority three of Peace II and the wider roles of the partnerships and the board in developing and extending the principles of partnership-working to other areas of European and mainstream public-expenditure-funded activity.
The Council also noted that the SEUPB would take over secretariat functions for the existing Northern Ireland Partnership Board to help to ensure a smooth transition from the current partnership arrangements to the new arrangements.
The Council noted that it is planned to establish a central payments unit in the SEUPB to process payments on behalf of implementing bodies in Northern Ireland under Peace II. The Council agreed that the establishment of a central payments unit would enhance the ability of the SEUPB to monitor spending at a more detailed level under Peace II. It also agreed that the establishment of the unit would go some way towards addressing concerns expressed by the European Court of Auditors about some aspects of financial management and control systems under Peace I.
The central payments unit will not compromise the authority of the various implementing bodies appointed under the programme to take decisions on the allocation of funding to individual projects. The Council also noted that further consideration will be given to embracing payments under other EU programmes under the system.
The Council received a report of the progress made on the negotiations of the community initiatives with the European Commission. The Council welcomed the progress made on the INTERREG III programme and noted that formal negotiation was about to commence. The Council agreed that the finance departments and the SEUPB should maintain pressure on the European Commission to enter into substantive negotiations as quickly as possible. The Council also urged the body to make as much progress as possible on the preparation of the programme complement for INTERREG III in advance of the completion of negotiations.
The Council also noted that the EQUAL programme for Northern Ireland had been revised in response to the Commission’s comments and that the revised programme would be submitted to the European Commission shortly and was expected to be formally adopted during April. The Council noted that comments had been received from the Commission on the Northern Ireland LEADER programme and that that would enable negotiations to proceed.
The Council also noted that the URBAN programme for Northern Ireland, which is one of a package of 13 bids submitted by the UK, was currently the subject of discussions between the European Commission and the UK about the total number of programmes to be submitted from the member state.
The Council received a report from the action team, which was established under the chairmanship of the SEUPB, to consider how the border corridor groups could contribute to decisions on spending from the new round of structural funds support in the border region. The Council agreed a set of principles to underpin the work and roles of the border corridor groups that would give those groups a greater input in deciding on the priority for spending of EU funds in the border corridor area.
The Council noted that work would continue to develop an operational framework for the application of those principles and to examine a proposal for an expenditure performance indicator. The Council asked to be updated at the next NSMC sectoral meeting on EU programmes about the progress on how the principles outlined in the report were being implemented in practice.
The Council considered a paper outlining the progress of spend on the Peace I programme and INTERREG II programme. The Council noted that overall expenditure at 31 December 2000 stood at 79% for Peace I and 86% of the INTERREG II initiative allocations. The Council agreed that that was an important area of work and that while progress had been made since the last report to the NSMC in November, further sustained effort will be required to ensure that full expenditure is achieved by 31 December 2001.
The Council also noted that the body will provide a further progress report on the implementation of both programmes at the next NSMC sectoral meeting on the special EU programmes. The Council stressed the need for the body to ensure that all the EU regulatory requirements for closure of the programmes are met and asked to be advised at the next NSMC sectoral meeting on progress made by the body in implementing those requirements.
The Council will meet again in this format in the North in June 2001. The Council agreed the text of a joint communiqué issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The penultimate paragraph of the third page of the Minister’s statement refers to the new regional partnership board replacing the current Northern Ireland Partnership Board. Can the Minister indicate when that process will be completed, the size of the new board and its sectoral composition? Can he elaborate on the middle sentence that refers to the role of the partnership board and links that to extending the principles of partnership working to other areas of European and mainstream public expenditure-funded activity? What does that mean? Does that contain some sort of financial and constitutional innovation, or is it quite innocuous?

Mr Mark Durkan: The point made in the statement reinforces and confirms a point I made in a previous statement that the operational programme for Peace II had been signed. In that context, both in answers to questions and in the statement, I addressed issues about how we saw the future development of partnership working, and we do want to develop it. The Executive have rightly stressed the need to ensure that we do not use the partnership model only for certain European programmes or for one priority area in the peace programme. If we really believe in and advocate the partnership model, we should extend it to other areas of European programme funding. Beyond the period when we have the special additional EU money available we want to be able to extend it to our own mainstream funding activity. It will mean that more decisions involving different areas of public expenditure and policy management and co-ordination will be informed by the strategic thinking of partnerships at local level.
In the next period, part of the role of the new regional partnership board will be to work not only with local partnerships to help to oversee and support what they are doing under the priority three measure of the Peace II programme but also to foster and develop more partnership thinking and working across a wider range of areas so that we achieve more from partnership and from public expenditure.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I welcome the complex and all-embracing statement by the Minister. Once again we see that, in the same way as its predecessor Peace I, the special EU programme for Peace II is a vote of confidence in the people of Ireland, North and South, and in the institutions that were set up through the Good Friday Agreement.
Can the Minister indicate what will be the timetable for the completion of the programme and the complements? When does he expect the resources to flow to the various communities so that the peace process can be deepened further? What special or enhanced arrangements will there be to ensure that the management and direction of the new regime will be based on the equality agenda and on the rural-proofing agenda and extend itself into the communities that are most in need of such support and most vulnerable?
I welcome the enhanced participation by the various bodies, boards, partnerships and district councils in the formulation of the strategy.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his comments welcoming the contribution that has been made by a number of interested parties to the development of the proposals and, just as importantly, to the management and success of the Peace II programme.
The operational programme was signed on 22 March in this Building. Under European regulations the programme complement that will set out the specific actions and measures to be undertaken must be agreed by the monitoring committee within three months of that date. Therefore we must agree it by 21 June.
Only when the programme complement is agreed by the monitoring committee will we be in a position to invite applications. We want to do that before 21 June. The Special EU Programmes Body, the two Finance Departments and all other Departments want to do it as soon as possible. If we are able to invite applications in June, we hope to see funding being allocated in September.
The monitoring committee will have a key role, not just in agreeing the programme complement, but with regard to key horizontal principles that apply right across the community support framework, including the Peace II programme. Those principles include equality and balance considerations. In this round, the monitoring committees will be encouraged to set up working groups that can focus on specific interests. There might, for instance, be a dedicated working group for rural issues.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Minister for making available the communiqué. The communiqué from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was not available when I called into the Library. Sometimes they are more revealing than Ministers’ statements. It should also be noted that the all-Ireland council meetings are moving full steam ahead, following a slight blip when the Ulster Unionist Party withdrew briefly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Do you have a question for the Minister?

Mr Edwin Poots: Yes. My question relates to the moneys that will be allocated to the cross-border element of the European programme. Will the Minister guarantee that that money will be better distributed than it was in the first round? Can he assure the House that the Unionist community, which I represent, will not be discriminated against? Given the demographics of Northern Ireland, North/South funding is more likely to go to people from the Nationalist section of the community. Will there be matching funding for the Unionist community?

Mr Mark Durkan: Obviously, cross-border measures have particular relevance to border areas, but they are not only relevant to those areas. The monitoring arrangements that will be in place for the next programmes are a significant improvement on previous monitoring arrangements. Adherence to horizontal principles and good monitoring practice will reassure everybody that the allocation and management of the funding is fair. If funding is given to us for specific measures in particular areas, we must use it for those measures and in those areas. Where criteria such as targeting social need are involved we must fulfil those criteria. We will see a fair and competent adherence to all the principles and requirements of EU regulations and to our own equality and TSN obligations.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this comprehensive statement, which deals with a matter that can be confusing for anyone dealing with the implementation of the programme.
The Minister spoke about the "near future". People will want to know when the "near future" is. Such target dates tend to move, and there is great confusion among groups about them. There is much work to be done in border areas, and there is money that can be used to the benefit of those areas.
However, groups need information about how things will happen and when things will happen. They need to know how they can go forward, how they can set up and implement projects, and how to direct themselves towards the right type of projects. They need to know the timescales, and there is a considerable amount of confusion in the industry about that. Single identity groups mentioned by Mr Poots can be dealt with on the basis of information drawn down to them.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his questions, and I acknowledge his point about the complexity of some of these issues and with the number of different programmes and the varying dates that are involved.
Obviously there has been a big concentration on the question of the Peace II programme. As I have indicated, we need to have the programme complements agreed by June. It will be on that basis that we will be able to invite applications for funding. I have said that we hope to be looking at allocations by September. We are trying to be clear and committed in relation to that date.
Some of the other programmes are still subject to further negotiation with the Commission, particularly the community initiatives, so we cannot specify some of those dates at this stage, because we cannot say exactly when negotiations will commence and conclude. We are not entirely masters of the timetable in relation to all of the programmes.
We have sought to communicate as much information as possible to various interested groups, not least in the context of gap funding arrangements, through which projects can apply for interim funding to cover the period from April to October 2001, because that period is clearly related to the fact that we hope to be able to look at allocations from the programme in September.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Can the Minister outline what specific steps, if any, are being taken to address the acknowledged problem of the lack of applications and the underfunding of projects from the Protestant/Unionist community in Northern Ireland?

Mr Mark Durkan: I have touched on this matter before, because a number of Members have already raised this question. It was a concern, not least at the interim stage in terms of Peace I. Various measures were identified by programme managers, not least in local partnerships, and were designed to ensure that a greater rate of applications would be encouraged and stimulated across the community. There was some success in that regard.
Members need to be careful about relying on impressionistic accounts of what has or has not been happening. I do not pretend that it has been the subject of a definitive and incontestable analysis, but some of the analyses undertaken show that there has been no difference. For instance, the rate of allocations to the two communities has been no different to the rate of applications; so there is no higher relative success rate.
The problem is about how you measure particular projects, whether you are classifying them as being from one community or another. Analyses, such as those by PricewaterhouseCoopers, indicate that significant amounts of funding are going to groups that are in essence cross- community and are able to show cross-community involvement and benefits.
We need to take account of the broader picture as well as try to ensure that we get full adherence to the horizontal principles in the new programme. Those horizontal principles place an emphasis on equality and balance.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I too welcome the statement and congratulate all those involved in the Minister’s Department on their work on the EU programmes. Can the Minister confirm that all parties are represented on the various monitoring committees and that the DUP, in particular, is sitting on the cross-border Peace II monitoring committee and playing a full and active part in its cross-border activities?
With regard to INTERREG III, at what stage can we expect to get details of the introduction and implementation of the operational framework and the involvement of the border corridor groups, as they are described in the new arrangements?

Mr Mark Durkan: Four Northern parties are represented on both the Peace II and the Building Sustainable Prosperity programme monitoring committees. Five parties are represented on the overall community support framework monitoring committee. In each instance those parties include the DUP, and all members are playing a full and active role in the monitoring committees. The committees have a serious amount of work to undertake in the next period, and there must be concentration on agreeing the programme complements. I hope that all parties will play their full parts in that.
In respect of the timetable for INTERREG III, I cannot definitively answer that question, because we are awaiting negotiations, and we must see how things are going there before we will have any precise idea of when they will conclude.
I met the border corridor groups in January. Charlie McCreevy, Minister of Finance in Dublin, also met the groups. We are both very happy to acknowledge the very significant contribution that they have already made and the particular contribution that they could make to the future success not just of INTERREG III, but of other programmes as well. That is why an action team involving members of the cross-border corridor groups was established under the chairmanship of the Special EU Programmes Body. At the sectoral meeting we noted the report from that action team. We intend constructively and positively to pursue some of the issues and ideas in that report, not just for the good of the cross-border corridor groups, but for the betterment of those programmes and the particular areas represented by those groups.

Mr George Savage: I too welcome the Minister’s statement. Over the years the partnership boards have done sterling work. I am sure that they are very keen to know what is going to happen. The members of the one in which I am involved want to know what the plans are going to be, because they are starting to run out of money. Have all the applications for funding to be made through the partnership boards, and how long is the lifetime of these new boards?

Mr Mark Durkan: I acknowledge the questions from Mr Savage. I want to make the point that the new local strategy partnerships have a particular focus as far as the management of priority three of the Peace II programme is concerned. That is for the life of that programme. We are trying to make sure that we develop the whole partnership model in a sustainable way. That means that we have to see the partnership model being able to work outside priority three of the Peace II programme and, indeed, outside and beyond the Peace II programmes and European Union- funded programmes in general. We are trying to develop the model of partnership during the next peace programme in ways that will sustain it beyond that particular programme.
Many of the local partnerships that had legitimate concerns and misgivings about how things might go have been somewhat reassured by the approach that is now visible to them. I can understand that there were communication and clarity difficulties that meant that people did have legitimate concerns. I hope that more people involved in partnership activity are now encouraged in relation to the proposals that we have for moving forward. They can see that they are about moving forward for all the very good reasons that the Member identified.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I too welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, the continued success in firmly establishing the Special EU Programmes Body. This body, which is a product of the Good Friday Agreement, is a vital component in building peace and reconciliation. We must encourage its work and ensure that it receives support in its development. Can the Minister give details as to the progress being made regarding the Peace I programme, and will every effort be made to ensure that this programme closes successfully?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for her strong recognition of the contribution that the Special EU Programmes Body can make.
I said in my statement that all the Ministers involved are determined to ensure that we complete our spend on Peace I on time this year. The reliable figure that we had was from 31 December 2000, and it indicated that we were at 79% of actual spend on Peace I. The on the hoof indications from the Special EU Programmes Body are that we are looking at an 84% rate of spend at present. It is important to make sure that we spend the rest between now and 31 December. It is also important that we make good some of the spending shortfalls in other areas. It is not that the money is not allocated, but for various reasons it has not been drawn down. We need to look at whether we should move into some reserve allocations for some of the funding as the best way of ensuring that we complete the spend.

Mr Alban Maginness: This and other meetings highlight the effectiveness of the North/South Ministerial Council and the need for it to progress issues such as EU funding and special EU programmes.
Unlike a previous Member who presented his question to the Minister, I do not represent one community. I aspire to represent both communities. Everyone in this House should aspire to represent both communities. We in north Belfast, an area of very high deprivation, look forward to the completion of negotiations between the UK Government and the European Commission in relation to URBAN II. It is vitally important for the development of north Belfast and those communities that have been so badly deprived over the years, both Catholic and Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist.
It is disappointing to note that the UK Government have not yet reached agreement with the European Commission. When does the Minister believe that agreement will be reached in relation to URBAN II?

Mr Mark Durkan: I want to acknowledge the important point made by Alban Maginness about how we approach and look at these important areas. We should particularly consider that part of the way we have lobbied for and sold the whole concept of these programmes to the European Commission has been on the basis of the significant impact that they can have at a cross- community level in fostering peace and reconciliation. It makes it all the more important, when we are deliberating on these programmes, that we try to think on a whole- community basis and not on a sectional basis.
Regarding the URBAN programme question, I cannot answer that. Alban Maginness will have heard me say before that prophecy is the most gratuitous form of error. I am not going to say when exactly I think negotiations will be completed. I can point out — as he recognises — that the difficulty is not one that arises because of the particular proposals submitted from Northern Ireland. The difficulties arise because our proposals are one of a package of 13 bids for this programme submitted by the UK, and there is a disagreement between the Commission and the UK Government about the number and format of programmes submitted by the UK. We have serious concerns about the Commission’s approach and have registered those concerns. We have also raised them with Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is his Department that handles these issues at UK level.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I also commend the Minister for this statement and, indeed, for his work, given the enormous difficulties he has faced both on the issue of the gap funding and with regard to the future programmes under Peace II.
My first question concerns the timetable. I welcomed the announcement on March 22, which included an operational timetable. They hope to have received bids and projects by August and to make decisions by September. This seems to me to be a very tight deadline. Is there any flexibility? It is worth putting on the record that it is an impossible deadline. Indeed, we may be back here looking for that flexibility in September, as we may not be in a position to allocate the first round of funding. This may not be as a result of anything that the Minister has done, but I ask him to create a little bit of flexibility, given the concerns that I am hearing on the ground. People do not feel that they may be able to meet the timetable as currently set out.
I also welcome the fact that the social partnership model may be extended beyond Peace II. This has been raised with us, particularly by visiting American delegations, who have come to look at the role of civic society in Northern Ireland, which is of enormous importance to the peace process. One of the points made to us is that the European Community may be creating a monster. Many groups are now being funded, but when Peace II runs out what is going to happen? It is extremely important, through the work of the Minister and others, that we have achieved the substantial amount of funding for Northern Ireland that takes us through this transition. It is a very difficult period for us. What are the plans for mainstreaming?
I remember when we set up women’s aid refuges in the 1970s, and everyone said we could not sustain them and that the Government would never take them over. Today no one would think of closing women’s refuges; that highlights the enormous role they have played in saving lives. I have an enormous concern about closing, or attempting to close, after Peace II, many of the wonderful projects that have been started in communities, particularly by women’s organisations. The Minister will be aware, no doubt, that the rural women’s network and other women’s support networks have written to him with this concern that they no longer want to have to be dependent on European funding. There should be a parallel discussion with Departments about mainstreaming many of these programmes

Mr Mark Durkan: It has been recognised that significant work has been involved and is still ahead. There are challenges for everybody in this. There are challenges not just for me and my Department and for other Ministers and their Departments, but for many of the bodies that have been involved in Peace I and have very strong ambitions and legitimate motives for being involved in Peace II as well.
We have been very conscious that there has been a great deal of frustration because the timetable keeps being pushed back. The operational programme was agreed and signed on 22 March. Under EU regulations, we have to have the programme complements agreed within three months of that date. That takes us up to June. On the basis of having the programme complements agreed, we would then be in a position to invite applications and bids. That is not a cut-off date. Applications can come after that time as well. In fact, bids can be made at any stage throughout the lifetime of the programme.
We want to respond to the fact that there is a great deal of concern and frustration. On the basis of the evidence that comes across my desk, there are very good proposals out there. In trying to move to being in a position to invite applications soon, we are not trying to set any deadlines that would make it very hard for groups or projects. We want the best possible spend and use of this money. We are not going to use timetables in ways that would militate against that.
I agree with Ms McWilliams on the need to have a strategy for mainstreaming the partnership model and making sure that the strategic thinking of partnerships influences and informs much more of what we do across a range of measures, not just at local level but also at regional level. How exactly that will be developed and managed will be one of the key roles of the regional development board.
In the new programme, the regional development board will not be preoccupied with micromanaging what local partnerships are doing. It will have responsibility for sponsoring and fostering a much stronger and more strategic approach to partnership that goes on for much longer and affects much wider areas than the Peace II programme.
The sitting was suspended at 1.08 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Education
North/South Ministerial Council

1. asked the Minister of Education to detail those areas which are unable to be advanced as a result of not holding a North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format.
(AQO 1303/00)


4. asked the Minister of Education to list those areas which have not progressed as a consequence of his non-attendance at a North/South Ministerial Council meeting in education sectoral format.
(AQO 1308/00)


With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will take questions 1 and 4 together.
In my statement on 5 June 2000, reporting on the inaugural meeting of the education sectoral Council meeting that took place on 3 February 2000, I advised the Assembly that several working groups were established to consider a series of important issues in a number of areas. A special educational needs provision working group has been focusing primarily on autism and dyslexia.
Three working groups were set up to consider several important issues relating to educational underachievement. One of those groups has been looking at ways of encouraging pupil attendance at school and their retention in education. The second group has been looking at good practice in the improvement of literacy and numeracy skills in young people, and the third has focused on child protection issues. A working group was also established to look at issues that might adversely affect teacher mobility on the island of Ireland.
The education sectoral Council also commissioned an independent study to evaluate school, youth and teacher exchanges. All of those working groups were to have reported formally to an education sectoral meeting with their proposals on the priorities they had identified, the measures that might be put in place and projected time frames for progressing particular tasks. That meeting was scheduled for last autumn. However, I regret that there has not been an education sectoral meeting of the Council since 3 July 2000. Consequently it has not been possible to receive and consider reports on the work of each of the working groups, take decisions on their recommendations or authorise further actions in those important areas.


Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. Paragraph 13 of strand two of the Good Friday Agreement states that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Assembly are mutually dependent and that one cannot successfully function without the other. Does the Minister agree that the First Minister’s continuing obstruction of the workings of the North/South Council in sectoral or plenary format has serious implications for the agreement?


I share the Member’s concern. Under the terms of the agreement, the Assembly and the North/South Ministerial Council are mutually interdependent, and one
"cannot successfully function without the other."
The obstruction of North/South Council meetings prevents me from fulfilling my responsibilities as a member of that Council. As a result, the potential for co-operation on issues affecting the education of all of the children of the island of Ireland is not being realised. The fracture of the institutions agreed on Good Friday needs to be repaired urgently.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the British Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, has the power and responsibility to direct the First Minister to make the appropriate nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council?


I understand that the British Secretary of State has the power to intervene in that way, and I have made that point to him repeatedly.


The issue is the North/South education meetings that have not been sanctioned. Many issues arise in my constituency regularly that have a North/ South aspect, and it is regrettable that the meetings are not taking place. Nevertheless, it is important that arrangements continue to be made for meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. Has the Minister instructed his staff to continue to make the arrangements for North/South meetings?


I have instructed my officials to proceed with making the arrangements for North/South meetings. It is a difficult situation for me as Minister of Education, because it is vital that every single aspect of the agreement is implemented, and my duties and responsibilities centre on the stewardship of the Department of Education.
I have attended meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and sectoral meetings on education, and I have struck up a good relationship with the Dublin Minister for Education and Science, DrMichael Woods TD. There is a will on the part of the two Administrations to press forward on all fronts and deal with important educational matters that affect all children in Fermanagh and throughout the island of Ireland.


In view of the low standards in the South of Ireland — perhaps the lowest in Europe — why does the Minister see benefits in our harmonising with the South of Ireland in every field of education? Northern Ireland, where a review of education is ongoing, has some of the best standards of education in Europe. Are we not harmonising downwards, rather than trying to achieve success for pupils in NorthernIreland?


Through the sectoral meetings, we are trying to increase co-operation between the education authorities in Dublin and Belfast in the best interests of all children. It is a matter of seeing where the good practice is and deciding how we can implement it in the interests of all the children who live on this island. It is common sense for us to make progress in that way.
In the United States of America, I met the Education Minister from the Clinton Administration, DrRichard Riley. The officials who accompanied me on that visit and others have been in constant contact with American officials. They have found it highly beneficial to avail themselves of the incredible amount of research into many different aspects of education that the Americans have. We must have open minds, and we must build relationships with people all over the world. This is a small island, and we have a duty to work together to improve levels of co-operation.

North/South Child Protection Working Group

2. asked the Minister of Education to report on the impact of the work of the North/South child protection working group and, in particular, on the provision of counselling for children.
(AQO 1297/00)


The Department of Education continues to work in conjunction with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the introduction of legislation aimed at preventing unsuitable people from working with children. The First Minister announced the legislation to the Assembly on 11September 2000. The work is being led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
One of the working groups established by the North/ South education sectoral Council focuses on child protection issues. The last education sectoral meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council took place on 3July2000. At that time, none of the working groups had reported back to the Council. A further education sectoral meeting was planned for late November but did not take place, and there have been no meetings of the education sectoral Council since. None of the work, nor any work under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, has any impact on the provision of counselling for children.
Many schools have responded to the need for counselling support by dedicating members of staff in their pastoral care teams to provide it and arranging for such staff to have suitable training. In some situations, counselling support is provided by staff from the education and library boards’ psychology service, the education welfare service, or staff who are specifically appointed for that purpose. In other situations, counselling support is provided by staff from voluntary or community groups with appropriate expertise. Access to such support is far from universal, and there are variations in the quality and duration of the support being provided.
The time is now right for evaluation of the various approaches to providing counselling support to pupils under stress. The findings from such an evaluation should be used to inform a strategy for the development of counselling support to pupils and their parents. In addition to issues such as the role of counsellors, appropriate qualifications and further professional development, a key issue will be whether counselling support should be school-based or provided independently of the school. I am pleased that I have secured some £350,000 from the Executive programme’s children fund to enable the work to proceed in the current year.


Does the Minister share my concern that the ban on his attendance at North/South Ministerial Council meetings delays progress on important issues relating to the education and protection of children across this island?


Of course I share that concern. I have already said that I regret that there has been no education sectoral meeting since 3 July 2000. I stress that I want to hold an education sectoral meeting as soon as possible so that work can be completed on these important matters relating to our children’s education.


Does the Minister not accept that the abject failure of his party to make political progress on the arms issue is the main stumbling block to his nonattendance at North/South Ministerial Council meetings?


Were I to accept that analysis, I would effectively be turning the Good Friday Agreement on its head. I do not think that anyone has the right to do that. My work as Minister of Education must remain over and above the outstanding difficulties of the process. Important work needs to be done in the field of education. We have to co-operate with the Southern authorities to put in place the best possible education system, North and South, and it is vital that we continue with that work. I deal with issues of great importance to all children, no matter where they live or from what section of the community they come on this island. Absolutely nothing should be done by any Administration to inhibit that.


Instead of whingeing about the bad faith of the British Government and seeking to put forward his interpretation on the Good Friday Agreement, will the Minister and his party not face up to their responsibility to give up the means of terror and the acts of terror which are perpetrated in his name? Will the Minister tell the House what he intends —


Order. The question to which we refer here was about the impact of the work of the North/South child protection working group. Will the Member please state how his question relates to the child protection working group?


Since it was the Minister who raised his non-participation in North/South bodies because of the actions which have been taken to ban him, I think that the reason for my question is fairly obvious.


Will the Member repeat the specific question?


I am more than happy to repeat the specific question.


The question which relates to the question asked.


The Minister has told the House that the North/South bodies’ work on child protection has been affected by his inability to participate in them. Does he not therefore accept that his first responsibility to the House, and to those for whom he claims to wish to introduce protection, is to give up the means of terror and the acts of terror which have barred him from participating in the North/South bodies? Or does he intend to continue to abuse the court system which his Colleagues have blown up — and let us not forget the judges he has killed — to get redress for this?


Order.


Again, I hear a Unionist spokesperson attempt to turn the Good Friday Agreement on its head. Under the terms of the agreement, all the pro-agreement parties — including the two Governments — share a collective responsibility to resolve the issue of arms. I am certainly prepared to continue to fulfil my responsibilities in that regard.
The actions of the First Minister with respect to the North/South Ministerial Council have clearly not served to resolve this issue. The continuation of these actions must cause us to question his motivation. It is also worth remembering that the judicial review of the First Minister’s action ruled that the obstruction of one element of the agreement could not be justified on the basis of the promotion of another of its objectives. I contend that I, as a Minister in the Executive in the North and as a member of the North/South Ministerial Council, have done everything in my power to resolve the issue to which the Member refers.
There is a duty on all of us, not just those in the pro-agreement parties. There is a duty on the MLAs from the Democratic Unionist Party and other parties in the House to work with the rest of us to bring about the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Serious questions need to be asked about the way in which people have sought to abuse the Good Friday Agreement in their efforts to place the responsibility for dealing with the issues on the shoulders of one political party.

Special Educational Needs: North/South Group

3. asked the Minister of Education to detail (a) the tasks undertaken and tasks completed by the North/South special education co-ordination group and (b) when this group will formally report.
(AQO 1283/00)


The last education sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council took place on 3July 2000. At that time none of the working groups, including the special education working group, had reported back to the Council. I reported that position when I made my statement to the Assembly on 11 September 2000.
A further education sectoral meeting of the Council was planned for late November but did not take place. Thus, no formal report of the working group has yet been made. I am unable to provide specific details of the work completed so far, as I am bound by the procedures of the Assembly and by the ministerial code. These require me first to report progress to the Executive and then, by way of a statement, to this Assembly after the next sectoral meeting takes place.
I stress that I wish to hold an education sectoral meeting of the Council as soon as possible to enable the working groups to report back so that decisions can be taken, thus avoiding further delay in progressing the important issues that the working groups have been considering.


Can the Minister outline any steps he has taken, or intends to take, to ensure that North/ South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings on education take place in the near future?


The Member will be aware that I took this matter to the courts, and the actions of the First Minister were found to be unlawful. Officials from my Department have, on my behalf, served formal notice on the North/South secretariat that I am seeking a North/ South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on education at the earliest possible date. I recently met with the British Secretary of State, John Reid, and outlined my view of the options available to him in the event of the First Minister’s continuing to act unlawfully. I will, of course, consider the various legal options open to me arising from any repetition of the refusal by the First Minister to nominate me to attend the North/South Ministerial Council.


I concur with the position of my Colleague Mr Kennedy and the support for that line from MrSammy Wilson. I am sure that the Minister realises that the solution lies with himself and his own party. Will the Minister detail, by subject and date, those educational matters on which he has requested a North/South Ministerial Council meeting since July 2000?


Since July 2000 we have been looking to progress all the matters that I outlined earlier in the course of my answers. I do not intend to waste the time of the Assembly by repeating those issues, but I am sure that the Member and his party are well aware of them.
It is important that we get these matters into perspective. The duty and responsibility of Members, and of myself as a member of the Executive, is to ensure that we make politics work and continue with what has been a considerable amount of good work done since the Assembly and the Executive were established.
The vast majority of people on the outside, who watch these proceedings with considerable interest, want to see politics and politicians working on their behalf. As Minister of Education, I have tried to work on behalf of everyone in the community without fear or favour. It is important that I be allowed to do my job to the fullest and that no obstacles be placed in my way. I am one of those people who believe that if we can press on to make politics work, all the difficult outstanding issues that create problems for people on the Unionist side can be resolved.

Assumption Grammar School (Ballynahinch)

5. asked the Minister of Education to detail the steps he is taking to provide capital expenditure for an extension programme at Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch; and to make a statement.
(AQO1260/00)


I fully accept the need to extend and refurbish the accommodation at Assumption Grammar School. The school was considered for a place in the capital programme, which I announced last month, but it was not possible to include it, given the resources available to me. The school continues to have a high priority in the distribution of capital funding, and it will be reconsidered next year.


I remind the Minister that, when he wrote to me on 17 October, he said that his Department fully accepts the need to extend and refurbish the accommodation at Assumption Grammar and that planning for this was at an advanced stage. He now accepts that that is the situation and that despite the advanced stage which had been reached last October, a decision on funding has now been put off until next year. I can only question what is meant by "priority" in the case of Assumption Grammar School in Ballynahinch and the other very urgent case of St Patrick’s Grammar School, Downpatrick. These two voluntary grammar schools, which are in my constituency, have not received any of these grants, despite the Department’s admission that they have high-priority need. Is the imposition of a waiting period of 12 months, plus an additional period, a correct interpretation of the word "priority"?


The Member will know, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that around 30 schools were competing for a place in the schools capital building programme, totalling some £200 million. I sympathise with every school which eagerly anticipated the announcement of the awards to be made under this year’s programme. This is always a very difficult matter for any Minister to deal with, simply because of the very limited resources available. The school is still a high priority. I accept the arguments put forward by Mr McGrady on behalf of his constituents, and I appreciate that, as Minister of Education, I have a duty to continue to lobby the Executive as best I can to acquire as much funding as possible to alleviate the difficulties experienced by many schools such as Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch, St Patrick’s Grammar School, Downpatrick, and others throughout the North.

Nursery and Primary Schools: Healthy Eating Programme

6. asked the Minister of Education to detail his plans for encouraging the consumption of milk and yoghurt in nursery and primary schools as part of the healthy eating programme.
(AQO 1290/00)


My Department is committed to encouraging the consumption of milk and dairy products, including yoghurt, in schools. Last year, when the European Commission reduced the subsidy payable under the EU’s school milk scheme, through which nursery and primary pupils may purchase milk at a subsidised price, my Department, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety agreed to co-fund the shortfall to ensure that the cost to pupils would not increase. My Department is also preparing a consultation paper on the implementation of new compulsory nutritional standards for school lunches. The proposed standards will require every school lunch for nursery and primary pupils to contain milk or dairy products, and drinking milk will be required as an available option every day.


I am sure the Minister will agree that, at the moment, good news for the agriculture industry would be most welcome. Does he agree that this is an opportunity to develop an interdepartmental approach, which would enhance the health of our children while promoting Northern Ireland dairy products? Will he undertake to continue his discussions with his ministerial Colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health so that the health of our children, and of our dairy industry, can be protected?


Yes. I agree that it would make sense if every Department continued to exercise cross-departmental co-operation. Many will know that, under the Executive programme funds, there are opportunities for co-operation between Departments. The Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should continue to consider these opportunities.
That said, a considerable amount of work is still being done, and we are at pains to continue to review the situation to ensure that there is a very high nutritional standard in schools.

Western Education and Library Board: Payment of Bills

7. asked the Minister of Education to ascertain the procedure adopted by the Western Education and Library Board for payment of bills to small contractors.
(AQO 1279/00)


I have been advised by the chief executive of the Western Education and Library Board that the board pays its trade creditors in accordance with the better payment code and Government accounting rules. On receipt of an invoice from a contractor the work is inspected and approved by the appropriate staff. The approved invoice is then sent for payment to the board’s accounts department, which ensures that where relevant the requirements of the construction industry’s tax scheme are complied with before payment is made.


I am glad that the Minister’s response means that the Department’s guidelines and Government guidelines are complied with. He may be aware that in the past some small firms have been forced out of business because money just did not come through in time. I refer in particular to the Derry City Council area, so I am glad that the Minister is now taking an interest in it. I hope that systems will be put in place; that those which are in place will be adhered to; and that firms will not go out of business again.


I understand that the Western Education and Library Board paid over 60% of invoices within 30 days of the invoice date over the financial periods 1998-99 to 2000-01. The last audited figure was 63% in 1998.
The chief executive has assured me that the board is extremely conscious of the need to ensure prompt payment of invoices. To that end, it has developed and implemented new procedures and payment arrangements continually to improve on past performance. Of course I sympathise greatly with the plight and difficulty of businesses, particularly small firms who find it very difficult. I can assure the Member that I am very conscious of the need to ensure that we continue to improve our performance.

Services for Hearing-Impaired Children (Ards Borough)

8. asked the Minister of Education to detail what services are available to children with hearing difficulties at schools in the Ards Borough Council area.
(AQO1269/00)


I understand from the South Eastern Education and Library Board that four different levels of service are provided for children with hearing difficulties in the Ards Borough Council area. These are: support teaching from the board’s peripatetic teaching service for the hearing-impaired; classroom assistance in mainstream schools; weekly hearing aid checks; and annual — or more frequently if requested by the school — hearing tests of those with fluctuating hearing loss but no hearing aids. Weekly and annual checks and tests are carried out by peripatetic teachers of the hearing-impaired.


I represent one of the largest growing consituencies in Northern Ireland of which the Ards borough comprises a considerable portion. Can the Minister tell me the exact number of places that are available for each of the four different levels of service he has described? I have a sheaf of letters in my office from residents of the Ards borough who have children with hearing difficulties and cannot get them placements for aid.


Currently, seven children receive support teaching, four receive classroom assistance, 13 have weekly hearing aid checks, and 29 have annual or more frequent hearing tests. A special education unit for the hearing-impaired was attached to Donaghadee High School and another existed at Rathmore Primary School in Bangor in the adjoining North Down Borough Council area. Neither of these units is currently in operation because there are insufficient hearing-impaired pupils in the schools’ catchment areas. If demand for these services were to increase, the South Eastern Education and Library Board would consider reinstating them.

Department Budget

9. asked the Minister of Education to detail the budget for his Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
(AQO1267/00)


The budgets allocated to the present Department of Education since it was created in 1999-2000 were £1,165 million, and £1,274 million for the year 2000-01. These relate to the services for which the new Department is responsible — schools, youth provision and their associated services.


Time is up.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

I would like to inform Members that question 11, in the name of Mr McGrady, and question 12, in the name of Mr Fee, have been withdrawn.

North/South Ministerial Council

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail what progress has been made by the Health, Social Services and Public Safety working group set up under the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 1281/00)


8. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail those areas which are unable to be advanced as a result of not holding a North/South Ministerial Council in health sectoral format.
(AQO 1306/00)


Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, freagróidh mé ceisteanna 1 agus 8 le chéile ós rud é go mbaineann siad le comhoibriú Thuaidh/Theas.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall take questions 1 and 8 together, since they both relate to North/South co-operation.
Bunaíodh comhghrúpaí oibre faoi choimirce na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas le machnamh a dhéanamh ar an dóigh arbh fhéidir comhoibriú Thuaidh/ Theas ar chúrsaí sláinte a mhéadú i gach ceann de na cúig réimsí aitheanta: seirbhísí taismí agus éigeandálaí, pleanáil éigeandálaí, trealamh ardteicneolaíochta, taighde ar ailsí agus cur chun cinn na sláinte. Bhí sraith cruinnithe ar leibhéal oifigiúil ann cheana féin. Cuireadh cruinniú earnála ar shláinte agus ar shábháilteacht bia a socraíodh don 3 Samhain ar ceal cionnas gur sháraigh an Chéad-Aire ar a dhualgas reachtúil a chomhlíonadh de réir mhír 52 d’Acht TÉ 1998 le hAirí cuí a ainmniú don chruinniú.
Joint working groups were set up under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council to consider how North/South co-operation on health matters could be enhanced in five identified areas: accident and emergency services; emergency planning; high-technology equipment; cancer research; and health promotion. A series of meetings has taken place at official level. A sectoral meeting on health and food safety scheduled for 3 November 2000 was cancelled as a result of a breach by the First Minister of his statutory duty under section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make the necessary ministerial nominations for the meeting. This action by the First Minister, which has since been ruled unlawful by the High Court, continues to hamper further progress.
The absence of North/South Ministerial Council meetings has meant that there has been a lack of strategic ministerial direction on the work being taken forward in each of the five areas, as envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement. It is also having a detrimental effect on the working of the Food Safety Promotion Board, and, as a result, the implementation of proposals for enhanced co-operation, which would be beneficial for people, North and South, has been delayed.


Does the Minister agree that any continuing obstruction of the work of the North/South Ministerial Council will erode confidence in the political institutions?
Will she further agree that the acquiescence to such an obstruction by the British Secretary of State, John Reid, places the British Government in breach of an international agreement?


I share the concerns expressed by the Member and regret that I was unable to hear her properly because of the disruption in the Chamber.
Paragraph 13 of strand two of the Good Friday Agreement states clearly that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Assembly are mutually dependent and that one cannot function successfully without the other. Therefore, any continuing obstruction of the workings of the North/South Ministerial Council, in sectoral or plenary format, will have serious implications. It will impede the work of the institutions and erode confidence in them.
The North/South Ministerial Council is the subject of an international agreement between the British and Irish Governments, and while it is a matter for the Irish Government to consider the options open to them, it is obvious that the continuing obstruction of the workings of the North/South Ministerial Council will have a damaging effect on all of us.


Go raibh maith agat. Can the Minister outline any steps that she has taken or intends to take to ensure that a sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on health and food safety takes place in the near future?


Like my Colleague, the Minister of Education, officials from my Department have on my behalf formally notified the North/South secretariat that I am seeking a North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on health and food safety at the earliest possible date. I have also written to the British Secretary of State, JohnReid, on two occasions reminding him of the powers available to him under section26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to direct the First Minister to carry out his statutory duty to make nominations to the Council. I have recently met separately with both John Reid and Taoiseach BertieAhern. I outlined my view of the options available to them in the event of the First Minister’s continuing to act unlawfully. I will consider the various legal options available to me if there is any repetition of the First Minister’s refusal to nominate me to attend the North/South Ministerial Council.


It seems as though we have returned to the first ministerial set of questions and answers. I would remind the Minister that the solution to her problem lies with herself, her ministerial Colleague and the rest of her party.
When I asked the Minister of Education a question, which the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must have heard, I did not receive an answer, so I wonder whether I will receive one on this occasion. Will the Minister detail, by subject and date, those health, social services and public safety issues for which she has requested that a North/South Ministerial Council meeting be held? Or, like her ministerial Colleague, has she not even bothered to request them?


If the Member wishes to look at the press release of 3November following the sectoral meeting in Enniskillen, he will see details of the issues that were dealt with at that meeting that were of great benefit to the people of Ireland, North and South. Those were the issues to be dealt with at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that I requested yet was not able to attend because of the First Minister’s breach in refusing to nominate me.


The Minister has not answered the question.


I have answered the question; I am answering the question. Since then I have instructed my officials to request another meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. For example, members of my staff and those from the Department in Dublin have held meetings on accident and emergency services in Belfast and Dublin to identify areas for enhancing co-operation in cancer services, staff training, development and exchange. Those are five matters that I would like to take up.
There are reviews of renal services to exchange information. There is a North/South paper, still at the development stage, on proposals for further local inter-hospital collaborative projects. That was discussed at the meeting in Enniskillen under the auspices of co-operation and working together (CAWT). The question of the Food Safety Promotion Board also needs to be dealt with. That board’s work is being held back because it has been unable to appoint permanent staff. It continues to operate with an interim chief executive and has not been able to obtain agreement on a strategic plan. The establishment of the scientific advisory committee on nutrition (SACN) awaits approval by the North/South Ministerial Council, and its formal appointment is essential to underpin the board’s credibility. That is all happening at a time when the agrifood industry is at its lowest ebb and people need help and guidance.
On the issue of planning for major emergencies, as Members will know from previous questions, a working group has been asked to look at the question of an air ambulance service. In the Fire Service, papers are under review on current co-operation, fire safety education awareness and co-ordination of cross-border responses to road traffic accidents. Those will be dealt with at a meeting of the working group.
Those are all matters which, when prepared, will go in front of the North/South Ministerial Council, should such a meeting be held. I am running out of time, but there are matters that relate to the operation of high-technology equipment and hospital, and community-related, emergency planning. There are further questions about the area of health promotion, including projects we wish to take forward that were discussed at the last meeting. Some of those relate to health in the workplace; others, such as smoking, particularly by young girls in school, will be discussed in conjunction with the Minister of Education. Those and other health promotion issues are ones that we wish to deal with at the next Ministerial Council meeting. The five different areas of co-operation and the work that the Food Safety Promotion Board needs to do at this critical time will be dealt with at the next possible opportunity.
We have the question of whether co-operation to date in plenary meetings has brought to light issues on which we might wish to expand the present co-operation and put forward ideas for a further work programme for the coming year. I hope that answers the Member’s question.


The Member asked for detail, and he certainly got as much if not more detail than he wanted. [Interruption].
I have been asked to take a point of order. Points of order come at the end of questions.


Does the Minister not find it odd that, at a time when she claims her Department is short of money and the budget is tight, she has spent money fighting political battles through the British court system, which IRA/Sinn Féin has consistently tried physically to destroy? Perhaps she will explain to the House why, given the antipathy of IRA/Sinn Féin towards the British Government and everything British, she has, by her own admission, written two begging letters to a British Secretary of State asking him to support her getting a North/South meeting called?


The Member has, as usual, asked a question in his own inimitable style. I suggest that he look at the Hansard record, which will show that I clearly said that I was reminding the British Secretary of State of the powers available to him under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to direct the First Minister to carry out his statutory duty. I was also perfectly capable of doing that in person on the occasion that I met with the British Secretary of State.
I do not have a variety of different court systems to choose from, so I happily use the one available to me. I do so because I am the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for all of society — for those constituents that the Member represents as well as for my own constituents; for those whom he represents in political outlook as well as for those whom my political outlook represents. My ability to do my duty for all of those people is being hampered by the continued refusal of the First Minister to nominate me to meetings of the North/ South Ministerial Council.
I also refer the Member to previous answers in which I have shown that the co-operation that we have been able to achieve, specifically in relation to health promotion issues, has been cost-effective and has saved us all money.

Alcoholism: Drinks Marketing

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to indicate what research she is undertaking to measure the influence of drinks marketing techniques on the rate of alcoholism.
(AQO1305/00)


Sheol mé ‘Straitéis an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin leis an Dochar Alcól-Ghaolmhar a Laghdú’ an fómhar seo caite. Ceanglaíonn seo de thrí chuspóir ghinearálta sinn: ar an chéad dul síos, dearcadh ciallmhar ar an ólachán a chothú; ar an dara dul síos, seirbhísí éifeachtacha cóireála a chur chun cinn; agus ar an tríú dul síos, daoine aonair agus comhphobail a chosaint ar an dochar a fhéadann mí-úsáid alcóil a dhéanamh.
Last autumn I launched the strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm, which commits us to three broad objectives. These are to encourage a sensible approach to drinking; to promote effective treatment services; and to protect individuals and communities from the damage that alcohol misuse can cause.
Within the framework established by the strategy my Department is working to develop an information and research programme. Priorities for the research programme will be set through consultation with a wide range of organisations and agencies. That will provide an opportunity to analyse and assess local drinking patterns and behaviours, including the influence of factors such as marketing techniques.


The vast majority of people involved in the drinks trade are decent, honourable people who share my concerns. Does the Minister agree that some of the marketing techniques referred to that promote alcohol — for example, "two for the price of one", happy hours and other attractions such as prizes and awards — could be a cause of increased alcoholism for some?
Will the Minister ensure that there is very close monitoring of such promotions in the drinks trade, so that her Department is in a position to make sound judgements about possible links between questionable marketing and alcoholism? Her Department could then take appropriate measures to counteract such practices.


I certainly share the Member’s concern about such marketing techniques. The strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm highlights that as an issue that should be pursued.
We will take the opportunity, through the implementation of the strategy, to highlight again the advertising codes of the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority. Those codes state that
"Particular care should be taken to ensure that advertisements for sales promotions requiring multiple purchases do not actively encourage excessive consumption."
We will also work with the drinks industry to address common areas of concern. We aim to have agreed joint policies for enhancing responsible trading next year, having reviewed the whole issue of responsible trading with the drinks industry, local strategy implementation groups and other interested bodies.


Is the Minister not aware that a major part of the European Declaration on Alcohol is a commitment to ensure that young people can grow up without undue exposure to the promotion of alcohol? Will her Department give specific attention to researching the correlation between drinks marketing techniques and binge drinking among young people?


Again, I share the Member’s concerns about marketing techniques, and I refer her to the answer that I gave on the points that we will be taking forward.
The specific link between marketing and binge drinking is certainly another aspect that must be examined with regard to the implementation of that part of the strategy. We certainly know that binge drinking is a particular problem here.
We know from a health promotion survey of adult drinking patterns carried out in 1999 that males who drank 10 units or more and females who drank seven units or more in one sitting were classified as having participated in a binge drinking session. Under that criteria, even at that time, 39% of male drinkers and 28% of female drinkers had experienced a binge drinking session in the week prior to the survey.
We will be taking specific measures to look at the question of binge drinking by young people. However, as I have said, the priorities for the research programme will be set through consultation with a wide range of organisations and agencies, which will provide the opportunity to address, to assess and to analyse that as an issue that needs to be researched.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister indicate what measures are in place to target under-age drinking and to educate young people about the dangers of under-age drinking?


Under-age drinking must be tackled seriously. It is an offence for licensees or their employees to sell alcohol to anyone under 18 years of age, and it is an offence for anyone under 18 to buy alcohol or present themselves as being over 18 for the purpose of buying alcohol. We will review the adequacy of the current controls as one element in the implementation of the alcohol strategy. As part of the school curriculum all young people receive health education to discourage them from under-age drinking. The curriculum includes education on alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. The Health Promotion Agency has also carried out research and delivered public information programmes.
Further work under the new alcohol strategy will develop a health promotion and education programme targeted at children and young people. The programme will provide training for teachers, other educators and youth workers. The target date for the development of these programmes is December 2001.

Ulster Hospital

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the current situation in the Ulster Hospital as regards (a) waiting lists, (b) intensive care unit (ICU) staffing and (c) the general financial situation of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust.
(AQO 1257/00)


Is don ráithe a chríochnaíonn ar 31 Nollaig 2000 a thagraíonn an t-eolas is déanaí atá ar fáil ar liostaí feithimh. Ag an am sin, bhí 3,605 duine ag fanacht le dul isteach in Otharlann Uladh mar othair chónaitheacha.
Cruinnítear eolas ar dhaoine atá ag fanacht lena gcéad choinne othair sheachtraigh ar bhonn iontaobhais agus chan ar bhonn otharlainne. Ag deireadh Nollag 2000, bhí 15,406 duine ag fanacht lena gcéad choinne othair sheachtraigh ag Iontaobhas Phobal agus Otharlanna Uladh.
The latest information available on waiting lists refers to the quarter ending 31 December 2000. At that time 3,605 people were waiting for inpatient admission to the Ulster Hospital. Information on people waiting for their first outpatient appointment is collected on the basis of trust rather than hospital. At the end of December 2000, 15,406 people were waiting for their first outpatient appointment at the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust. The current staffing levels in the intensive care unit are adequate, having been increased in the past year.
A reference was made to the general financial situation of the trust. My Department has recently allocated an additional £1·35 million to enable the trust to deal with its cumulative deficit at the end of this financial year. My Department is also engaged in ensuring that the trust has an agreed recovery plan that will enable it to maintain financial stability in future years.


I thank the Minister for her answer, especially with regard to the financial situation. From the time that the Ulster Hospital was built, it has been promised extra money, and it is good that a local Minister is allocating that money now because it is really needed. Anyone who has been in the Ulster Hospital will be aware of that. Does the Minister accept that money is needed for the casualty unit tomorrow — in fact, it was needed yesterday — to ensure that recent incidents do not recur and that waiting lists are reduced as quickly as possible?


Some aspects of the programme for the Ulster Hospital were implemented urgently because we understood the need for them. My Department acted quickly to address the individual deficit problems at the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust, and other trusts, by requiring formal recovery plans from the relevant organisations. We understand the need for capital investment for the business case that the trust has been working on and has brought to us. We will give it our consideration.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
There are many "ologies" in medicine — and I am sure that the Minister has met quite a few of them — ranging from anthropology to zoology. I am sure that she has met a bit of "codology" as well. Dermotology services are one of the Cinderellas of medicine. Can the Minister detail the present state of the dermotology services in the Ulster Hospital and how they are to be developed because of the increase of skin cancer in our area?


As regards waiting lists, dermatology is one of the three main specialities accounting for the majority of the change in the numbers of people waiting for both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Clearly, there is a need for work in this area. The majority of the change can be accounted for by dermatology, plastic surgery and trauma, and orthopaedics. We have taken that matter on board.
However, part of the change is due to an increase in referrals and in emergency admissions to the Ulster Hospital in respect of these specialities, including dermatology. The trust also undertook a programme of work to rationalise the process by which referrals are sent by GPs, and that has led to the trust dealing with a number of referrals that, in the past, would have been referred to other trusts. That is something that we need to take on board and to look out for in the future.


In answer to the previous question, I do not think that there is a treatment for "codology".


I am interested in the 3,605 waiting list patients in general. However, can the Minister tell us what percentage of operating theatre time is lost because of theatre staff non-availability — in other words, where nurses or theatre support staff are not available, yet surgeons and others are?


I cannot give a specific percentage of operating time lost, but I certainly share the Member’s concern regarding the availability of nursing specialists. That has been the case in waiting lists generally, and in some specialities more than others the availability of theatre time and staff has impacted on waiting lists. The Member will be aware that we have looked not only at the question of increasing nursing numbers — and we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 100 places each year for the next three years — but specifically at specialities within that area. That is something that will be addressed.

Lagan Valley Hospital A&E Department

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to explain how Lagan Valley Hospital was granted permission to build a new accident and emergency department before the acute hospitals review group has given its report on acute services.
(AQO 1298/00)


Is é atá san obair ar an roinn taismí agus éigeandálaí ag Ospidéal Ghleann an Lagáin ná athchóiriú na n-áiseanna reatha le cinntiú go gcoinneofar na seirbhísí atá ann faoi láthair. Chuir mé in iúl go soiléir nár cheart d’obair an athbhreithnithe ar ghéarospidéil aon bhac a chur ar sholáthar leanúnach seirbhísí. Ní gá don iontaobhas cead a iarraidh ar an Roinn le tabhairt faoin obair mar nach dtéann na costais chaipitil thar £500,000.
The work on the accident and emergency department at Lagan Valley Hospital is, in fact, the refurbishment of the current facilities to ensure the maintenance of existing services. I have made it clear that the continued delivery of services should not be impeded by the work of the acute hospitals review group. The trust does not require permission from the Department to undertake the work, as capital costs do not exceed £500,000.


Is the Minister aware that this is a manoeuvre being pulled by the trust to ensure that it does not have to get approval and that the cost, as discussed by the trust, is more likely to be in excess of £700,000 when equipment, and so on, is in place? The Department has said that accident and emergency units, or variations of them, should not be changed until the Hayes review of acute services is delivered. The danger is that if this refurbishment takes place — or what I see as a completely new accident and emergency unit, publicly advertised as such by the trust itself — it could make the Hayes review redundant.
At the same time, in my area hospital, the South Tyrone Hospital, the accident and emergency unit has been closed for 12 months, and people are on long waiting lists in Craigavon. We need to view this not as refurbishing —


Order. Will the Member please put a question to the Minister?


Does she accept that this does not constitute refurbishment and that the actual cost will be in excess of £700,000 rather than £500,000?


I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the work on the capital costs will exceed £500,000. If that is found to be the case, the trust will require the Department’s permission, and I will have to take the matter up with that trust. However, on the basis that the acute hospitals review should not affect the continued delivery of high-quality services, I expect trusts to take the action necessary to ensure that patient services are up to standard. That includes continued refurbishment, where necessary, in hospitals.


Our time is up. I thank the Minister.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order 19(5), the Speaker may from time to time consult the Business Committee on the need to provide additional time for questions. Will the Minister examine the length of some of the answers given? By ensuring that answers are brief and to the point, additional time could be created, and this would enable us to get further than question 4 on the Order Paper.


There are two other points of order.


In answer to an earlier question, the Minister said that she was not able to fulfil her duties because of her party’s exclusion from the North/South bodies. If that party and its associates were to decommission their weapons and explosives, they would not have a problem.


That is not a point of order. Will the Member please refer to the Standing Order to which he is referring.


The Minister said that she is not able to carry out her duties because of her non-attendance at North/South bodies. She could do a good deal of work here in Northern Ireland.


Order. I have ruled that this is not a point of order.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the fact that just four oral questions have been answered this afternoon, will the Minister not consider in future, as a courtesy to the House, answering all the questions in English, as this would not take up so much time?


We have been over this matter several times, and the time taken up by answers in Irish has no impact. Members should consider that oral questions — not written questions — comprising parts (a), (b) and (c) are allowed and that that has a clear impact on the length of answer that a Minister is expected to give.


Order. These points of order have been responded to by the Minister, and that has prolonged this section of Question Time. I will respond to the points of order that have been made. Five questions have been dealt with during this 30-minute period. The first question was amalgamated with question 8. It is important that points relating to the length of questions and their responses be brought to the Business Committee by the Whips. That is where these issues should be discussed.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With reference to the last point of order, I will take guidance from you, but, in my opinion, it was inappropriate for you to refer that question to the Minister. The Standing Order that Mr Davis was referring to is an Order of this House.


Order. The question which was originally introduced as a point of order was not referred by the Deputy Speaker to the Minister. The Minister sought to respond immediately on her own behalf.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order for you to step in when it is clear that the Minister is filibustering to avoid later questions?


Order. That is not a point of order. We must move on.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With regard to the points of order on the Irish language, if proper translation facilities were available in the House, there would be no need to hold up the debate.


Order. Time is up. We must move on.

Finance and Personnel

Question number 12 in the name of John Fee has been withdrawn.

Access to Children’s Fund

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail when the children’s fund can be accessed by organisations other than Government Departments.
(AQO 1287/00)


The Executive propose to consult with the voluntary and community sector on arrangements for the children’s fund. An interdepartmental working group has been established to work with the voluntary and community sector with a view to putting in place the necessary arrangements so that funding can be allocated in September 2001.


Can the Minister confirm how much remains in the children’s fund following his first round of allocations? Will he ensure that those voluntary and community organisations with valuable advice and input to give in this area will be consulted on the best use of the remaining resources?


There is £29 million in the Executive programme fund entitled the children’s fund. Based on the previous announcements made in the House, we have allocated £10 million. That leaves £19 million. We have not determined the precise balances that are to be allocated to direct bids from the community and voluntary sector or to the bids from Departments. Even those areas of the fund that have been subject to bids generated by specific Departments or between Departments can have application to the community and voluntary sector. It is not the case that bids from Departments would simply be confined to Government activity. They could also fund activity in other sectors. We have an amount of money in the fund that can assist the community and voluntary sector where there are good proposals.


Can the Minister assure me that priority in the allocation of funds to non-governmental organisations will be given to established children’s charities rather than to bureaucratic intermediary bodies, thereby ensuring that children themselves benefit from this innovative programme?


One of the things that the Executive want to achieve with Executive programme funds is maximum direct benefit to the community and to particular services. However, we also want to ensure that there is a good strategic impact. There will also be many instances, not least in the children’s fund, where some of the funding will be to pilot schemes, or pilot initiatives, that could include some direct services. This might also involve some developmental work being undertaken by bodies that might be classified as intermediary bodies or bodies that are representing a wider service interest. What we would be trying not to do is to have the funds soaked up by schemes or projects that are not of themselves adding new, additional or developmental benefit. We cannot say at this stage that particular priority or preference will be given to certain organisations above others.

Peace II Money: Distribution

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if it is his intention to ring-fence Peace II money to ensure equitable distribution.
(AQO1301/00)


The funding to be allocated under the Peace II programme has been agreed by the Executive, and the respective financial allocations for each priority and measure are specified in the operational programme which was formally agreed with the European Commission on 22 March.


I am not sure what question the Minister was answering, but he did not address the issue of ring-fencing the Peace II money. Clearly, that was a problem with Peace I. Where money was ring-fenced, it was more equitably distributed.
Is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that Peace II is ring-fenced so that the Unionist community can get a piece of the cake and not just the crumbs that it received last time?


I did address the issue in the question. I made it quite clear that the funding is available and will be allocated on the basis of the criteria that are set down in the operational programme and will be further defined in the programme complement. The community support framework provides a set of horizontal principles that will be fully adhered to. Monitoring arrangements are in place for the next Peace programme, and I believe that they are much stronger and more effective than in the last Peace programme.
I also believe that the Member’s latter point acknowledges that, notwithstanding many of the perceptions that have existed about this, progress has been made on this issue in ensuring that there has been a better spread of applications coming forward, and in turn there may be a healthier balance of allocations. Equality and balance are two of the key issues in the horizontal principles, and when we fully apply those measures in that way, people throughout the community will be satisfied with the outcome.


Will the Minister confirm that the £6·67 million ring-fenced for victims is to be allocated specifically to the victims of terrorism? What sum has been ring-fenced to support ex-prisoners? Perhaps it would be better if such funding were allocated to ex-prisoners via non-ex-prisoner-type organisations, which would better assist the process of rehabilitation.


The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will manage the money in relation to victims. The junior Ministers have already spoken to the House about those plans. We have agreed the operational programmes. The programme complements have to be agreed, and that will include details of the precise measures and criteria. That is still to be determined.
The emphasis is that the funding will be for people who have suffered injury, bereavement or direct suffering as a result of violence in our community. Ex-prisoners’ groups and interests are eligible for consideration under a number of measures in the Peace II programme.

Peace II Programme: Community and Voluntary Sector

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the role envisaged for the community and voluntary sector in respect of the Peace II programme.
(AQO 1304/00)


The community and voluntary sector will continue to have an important role in Peace II overall, and, because the terms of reference for the new local strategy partnerships will be wider, the scope for that sector to influence strategic priorities at the local level should be increased.


Does the Minister agree that a number of organisations and representatives from the voluntary and community sector have already made their concerns known to the Department in respect of the strategy partnership? Concerns have been expressed that the community and voluntary sector might be swamped by some of the more mainstream or statutory bodies.


I acknowledge that that concern exists and has existed for many people in the community and voluntary sector. I have some sympathy with that. I am pleased to observe that many people in that sector have been reassured by the further plans and thinking that we have been able to show, particularly as we have agreed the Peace II operational programme. In turn, we have been able to concentrate on some of the more detailed issues of the transition to new partnership models.
Many of the fears that people had have now been seen to be ill-founded, and many are looking forward positively to the sort of prospects opening up for partnership in the new Peace programme. However, they are clearly conscious that the real test will be how things work in practice. If seized properly these new proposals will allow the community and voluntary sector not just to get a significant turn for itself, and those that it serves, out of the Peace II programme, but also to make a very significant contribution to the activities of other sectors.


Can the Minister explain why it has taken two months to deal with the appointment of the intermediary funding bodies (IFBs) for Peace II? When does he expect a final decision to be made?


I will try to avoid any issues of anticipation in this answer as the subject of the next question is also IFBs. I can assure the Member that there has been no delay. The advertisement calling for applications was published in January, with a closing date of 2 March. A significant number of applications were received. It is a competitive process, and those applications have had to be processed and evaluated. In that sense two months is not a delay; rather it is a reasonable time for the submission and consideration of bids. We are now hoping to move forward.

Peace II Programme: Intermediary Funding Bodies

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what bodies will be selected as intermediary funding bodies for the delivery of funds from the Peace II Programme; and to make a statement.
(AQO 1258/00)


As I just said, at the end of January an advertisement was placed in newspapers, North and South, asking for interested organisations to submit tender applications for apppointment as IFBs under Peace II by 2 March 2001. An independent evaluation of the tenders received has been completed by outside consultants, and the results will be considered by the selection steering group later this week. The selection process is expected to be concluded next month.


I thank the Minister for his reply and his answers to the previous supplementaries. However, considering that the Rural Development Council has already achieved a very high level of expertise and has a proven track record in delivering funds from the first Peace programme, what assurances can the Minister give that it can and will be selected as an intermediary funding body for the delivery of those programmes that pertain to the rural community?
In the interim, what will the Minister do to ensure the sustainability of ongoing programmes, which have been so important in the rural communities?


The process for selection of IFBs for the next programme has been an open and competitive process and still has fully to run its course. The consultants will be referring their consideration on the proposals submitted to the steering group later this week. Therefore I cannot anticipate that any group, which may or may not have tendered for this, will be successful. It would clearly be inappropriate for me to enter into any speculation, never mind give any commitments in that regard. However, I am happy to recognise the very strong, important and invaluable contribution that all the intermediary funding bodies have made to the success of Peace I and that many of them make in a number of other fields through their other responsibilities and efforts as well.
As for gap funding, we are trying to ensure that we are open for applications before the summer to minimise the gap. In the meantime interim funding opportunities are available. Groups that were previously funded from intermediary funding bodies are eligible to apply. Individual projects have received information through advertisements and through responses to specific requests.
If the Member has any particular concerns about the working of these arrangements, I will be happy to look at them.


Will the Minister indicate the criteria used to determine the effectiveness of the intermediary funding bodies under Peace I, and if success in giving, or more often than not failure to give, a fair and equitable geographical and community spread of the previous funding will be taken into consideration when appointing new intermediary funding bodies?


I have to be careful about being drawn in too deeply in reply to the Member’s question, because it asks me to speak specifically about the performance of groups as intermediary funding bodies in Peace I, and many of those groups have tendered to be such bodies in Peace II. I cannot associate myself with some of the pejorative references in the Member’s remarks concerning the performance of those intermediary funding bodies, because it would be prejudicial to the selection process.
I reiterate that I am happy to acknowledge the important and valuable contribution of intermediary funding bodies in difficult territory. The issues the Member raises about the difficulty in satisfying everybody in geographical spread and community balance are not confined to intermediary funding bodies or to programmes funded by the European Union.

Procurement

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to confirm that current policy on procurement operates on the lowest common denominator of value for money; and to make a statement.
(AQO 1277/00)


6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what progress has been made on the procurement review.
(AQO 1288/00)


With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 5 and 6 together as they both deal with public procurement policy.
As I stated to the Assembly on 12 March 2001, current policy is that all public procurement is to be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. Value for money is defined as the optimum combination of whole-life cost and quality or fitness for purpose to meet the users’ requirements.
The implementation team that has been established to make progress on the findings and recommendations of the initial procurement review has met on four occasions and is planning to engage in public consultation during May. This will assist in bringing forward proposals that take account of the equality dimension for consideration by the Executive Committee in June.


I thank the Minister for his reply, which I think was "Yes", although I had some difficulty in interpreting it. On the assumption that it was a "Yes", and that all we currently have is a lowest common denominator, let me quote to the Minister, from a 1999 report, the second half of the sentence from which I took my question:
"…there is insufficient management information to measure achievement against such a policy."
Will the Minister tell the House whether in the last two years any management information has come to hand and what his estimates might be of the potential benefits of properly implementing a value-for-money policy?


As I have indicated previously on the procurement issue, one reason that we are now involved in the implementation exercise is precisely to make good the sort of gaps and deficiencies that the report identified — gaps and deficiencies that probably surprised many of us, and that included management and information. The implementation exercise will look at that important issue among others. It is important for value for money and also for other relevant public procurement considerations.


The Minister will be aware that a number of recent reports produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General are highly damaging to public confidence. Can the Minister confirm that the findings of the review team will take account of the equality issues involved in procurement and will ensure that all proper procurement procedures suggested by the review will be followed? We do not want a repeat of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s printing contract shambles, and we want to ensure that the opportunity to operate cosy cartels or golden circles is gone from the procurement process for ever.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the Assembly has a major task to perform in that regard.


A number of concerns have been raised for Members by Audit Office reports that, among other things, have looked at some procurement issues, and they are not confined to the one mentioned by Mr Dallat. There are others. The implementation exercise in which the Department of Finance and Personnel is engaged should try to ensure that the new arrangements that operate should also serve to help prevent any repeat of those difficulties.
The Department of Finance and Personnel wants all Departments to use the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA). The Department wants to make sure that the practices, procedures and opportunities available to the GPA in respect of value for money, probity, fairness and equality are used to serve the public that the Assembly represents. Equality considerations are a significant dimension to the work of the implementation exercise. The Department of Finance and Personnel wants to make sure that public procurement is conducted in the public interest and that the Executive are paying as little as they need to for good services and goods. The Department also wants to ensure that everybody is able to compete on a fair and equitable basis to provide services or goods under public procurement.

Peace II Partnership Models

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give details of the consultation involved in the process of drawing up the arrangements for the new partnership models in Peace II.
(AQO 1286/00)


Last October, I set up a working group that consisted of representatives of district councils, district partnerships and intermediary funding bodies. The purpose of that working group was to draw up proposals for best developing the role and functions of partnerships in each district council area in the new Peace programme and more widely. The working group’s proposals were endorsed by the Executive in December, and arrangements for their implementation were discussed at a colloquy in Ballymena on 31 January attended by representatives of all the organisations that had been involved in the delivery of Peace I.
Following that, the chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body convened a focus group to draft guidelines for the formation and operation of the new partnership model. Throughout that period there were also consultations with the European Commission on the development of the new partnership model.


Given the many excellent initiatives that have come to fruition as a result of the effort and energy of the voluntary and community sector, will the Minister confirm that as a result of his actions there will be no downgrading of the role of that sector? Will he confirm that, on the contrary, the sector’s influence will increase so that the concept of partnership will develop and continue long after the EU moneys have been spent?


I thank the Member for his questions and concur with his positive assessment of the contribution that the partnerships have made to the success of Peace I and, as a result of that contribution, to wider efforts at local and regional levels. The partnerships have had a pathfinding role, and the community and voluntary sector has played a positive defining role. That is something that I want to see not only continued but developed as well.
I repeat the assurances that I have given in the House and in meetings with the community and voluntary sector. The Department of Finance and Personnel is concerned with seeing the partnership model succeed and flourish — not in ways in which it is just confined or in gateways to a particular EU programme, but where it can influence and inform strategic progress across a number of sectors.
The community and voluntary sector will be well placed to continue to make a significant and positive contribution in that regard. There will be challenges for that sector in the new partnership model. There will also be challenges for other sectors, not least the statutory sector.

Peace and Reconciliation: EU Structural Funds

8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to state what impact European Union structural funds have had in achieving peace and reconciliation in each section of the community.
(AQO 1265/00)


A full assessment of the impact of structural fund programmes is a major research project which cannot be undertaken until the programmes in question have ended. The ex post evaluations of the 1994-99 NorthernIreland single programme and the 1995-99 special support programme for peace and reconciliation will begin before the end of the current financial year. These will aim to assess all programme impacts including peace and reconciliation.


Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to ensure that there is an equal distribution of the EU structural funds, given that the Unionist community has been overlooked for many years? I appreciate the Minister’s reply to my Colleague MrPoots that equality and balance are the key issues. I agree 100%, and I trust that he will do everything in his power to address the issue of the Unionist community’s being overlooked in the distribution of funds.


While appreciating the Member’s point, I stress again that we need to be careful about making sweeping assumptions about the balance of allocation with regard to some of these programme funds.
With regard to the Unionist community’s being overlooked, the interim report of 1997 from the three MEPs, including IanPaisley, stated that there was no question of discrimination. While it noted that there appeared to be a lower rate of applications from communities in Protestant areas, that, in itself, did not imply any discrimination. That exercise, and other efforts, recognised the need to try to improve the situation and particularly to mitigate some of the legitimate concerns that were being expressed at that time. That work continues.
We need to remember that many of these measures have to work according to particular criteria. Targeting social need and deprivation factors can be relevant. Targeting social need considerations will not necessarily be synonymous with some people’s interpretation of what an equality consideration may mean.


I am sure that the Minister is glad to be answering a question on funds other than Peace II. Will he confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the outlay of future funds with regard to Peace II, the transitional funds and the peace and reconciliation criteria to ensure that more jobs are created in areas which have genuine economic competitiveness to underlie them?


The Peace programme, important and valuable though it is on the basis that it is additional money, is one part of the community support framework. The other larger part of the community support framework is the programme for building sustainable prosperity. A number of important principles have to inform the allocations and planning in respect of that programme. Not least of these is sustainability with regard to any project or measure. Longer-term sustainability with regard to underpinning longer-term economic development and supporting continuing prosperity is also important.
We need to ensure that we are making very clear, hard-headed decisions. This is not additional money, and many people seem to be under the illusion that it is. Since it is not additional money, it cannot be used, as some people seem to be suggesting, as a runner-up fund for projects that do not quite come through in relation to the Peace programme.
Clearly, the competition is going to be intense. We have to remember that the distinctiveness of the two programmes is important, and that is often emphasised to me by people who are very concerned to see that the integrity of the Peace programme is respected. That also applies in relation to the integrity of the programme for building sustainable prosperity.

Rates Arrears

9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give his assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken by his Department to reduce the level of rates arrears.
(AQO 1276/00)


The level of rate arrears expressed as a percentage of the gross collectable rate for each rate year has fallen from 3·8% in 1985-86 to 1·86% in 1999-2000. The lowest level of rate arrears was 1·72% in 1997-98. The Rate Collection Agency has consistently secured an arrears level of less than 2% over the last five years. The performance compares favourably with that delivered by similar public sector revenue collection organisations in other jurisdictions.

Education

North/South Ministerial Council

Mr Alex Maskey: 1. asked the Minister of Education to detail those areas which are unable to be advanced as a result of not holding a North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format.
(AQO 1303/00)

Dr Dara O'Hagan: 4. asked the Minister of Education to list those areas which have not progressed as a consequence of his non-attendance at a North/South Ministerial Council meeting in education sectoral format.
(AQO 1308/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will take questions 1 and 4 together.
In my statement on 5 June 2000, reporting on the inaugural meeting of the education sectoral Council meeting that took place on 3 February 2000, I advised the Assembly that several working groups were established to consider a series of important issues in a number of areas. A special educational needs provision working group has been focusing primarily on autism and dyslexia.
Three working groups were set up to consider several important issues relating to educational underachievement. One of those groups has been looking at ways of encouraging pupil attendance at school and their retention in education. The second group has been looking at good practice in the improvement of literacy and numeracy skills in young people, and the third has focused on child protection issues. A working group was also established to look at issues that might adversely affect teacher mobility on the island of Ireland.
The education sectoral Council also commissioned an independent study to evaluate school, youth and teacher exchanges. All of those working groups were to have reported formally to an education sectoral meeting with their proposals on the priorities they had identified, the measures that might be put in place and projected time frames for progressing particular tasks. That meeting was scheduled for last autumn. However, I regret that there has not been an education sectoral meeting of the Council since 3 July 2000. Consequently it has not been possible to receive and consider reports on the work of each of the working groups, take decisions on their recommendations or authorise further actions in those important areas.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. Paragraph 13 of strand two of the Good Friday Agreement states that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Assembly are mutually dependent and that one cannot successfully function without the other. Does the Minister agree that the First Minister’s continuing obstruction of the workings of the North/South Council in sectoral or plenary format has serious implications for the agreement?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I share the Member’s concern. Under the terms of the agreement, the Assembly and the North/South Ministerial Council are mutually interdependent, and one
"cannot successfully function without the other."
The obstruction of North/South Council meetings prevents me from fulfilling my responsibilities as a member of that Council. As a result, the potential for co-operation on issues affecting the education of all of the children of the island of Ireland is not being realised. The fracture of the institutions agreed on Good Friday needs to be repaired urgently.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the British Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, has the power and responsibility to direct the First Minister to make the appropriate nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I understand that the British Secretary of State has the power to intervene in that way, and I have made that point to him repeatedly.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The issue is the North/South education meetings that have not been sanctioned. Many issues arise in my constituency regularly that have a North/ South aspect, and it is regrettable that the meetings are not taking place. Nevertheless, it is important that arrangements continue to be made for meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. Has the Minister instructed his staff to continue to make the arrangements for North/South meetings?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have instructed my officials to proceed with making the arrangements for North/South meetings. It is a difficult situation for me as Minister of Education, because it is vital that every single aspect of the agreement is implemented, and my duties and responsibilities centre on the stewardship of the Department of Education.
I have attended meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and sectoral meetings on education, and I have struck up a good relationship with the Dublin Minister for Education and Science, DrMichael Woods TD. There is a will on the part of the two Administrations to press forward on all fronts and deal with important educational matters that affect all children in Fermanagh and throughout the island of Ireland.

Mr Oliver Gibson: In view of the low standards in the South of Ireland — perhaps the lowest in Europe — why does the Minister see benefits in our harmonising with the South of Ireland in every field of education? Northern Ireland, where a review of education is ongoing, has some of the best standards of education in Europe. Are we not harmonising downwards, rather than trying to achieve success for pupils in NorthernIreland?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Through the sectoral meetings, we are trying to increase co-operation between the education authorities in Dublin and Belfast in the best interests of all children. It is a matter of seeing where the good practice is and deciding how we can implement it in the interests of all the children who live on this island. It is common sense for us to make progress in that way.
In the United States of America, I met the Education Minister from the Clinton Administration, DrRichard Riley. The officials who accompanied me on that visit and others have been in constant contact with American officials. They have found it highly beneficial to avail themselves of the incredible amount of research into many different aspects of education that the Americans have. We must have open minds, and we must build relationships with people all over the world. This is a small island, and we have a duty to work together to improve levels of co-operation.

North/South Child Protection Working Group

Ms Sue Ramsey: 2. asked the Minister of Education to report on the impact of the work of the North/South child protection working group and, in particular, on the provision of counselling for children.
(AQO 1297/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Department of Education continues to work in conjunction with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the introduction of legislation aimed at preventing unsuitable people from working with children. The First Minister announced the legislation to the Assembly on 11September 2000. The work is being led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
One of the working groups established by the North/ South education sectoral Council focuses on child protection issues. The last education sectoral meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council took place on 3July2000. At that time, none of the working groups had reported back to the Council. A further education sectoral meeting was planned for late November but did not take place, and there have been no meetings of the education sectoral Council since. None of the work, nor any work under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, has any impact on the provision of counselling for children.
Many schools have responded to the need for counselling support by dedicating members of staff in their pastoral care teams to provide it and arranging for such staff to have suitable training. In some situations, counselling support is provided by staff from the education and library boards’ psychology service, the education welfare service, or staff who are specifically appointed for that purpose. In other situations, counselling support is provided by staff from voluntary or community groups with appropriate expertise. Access to such support is far from universal, and there are variations in the quality and duration of the support being provided.
The time is now right for evaluation of the various approaches to providing counselling support to pupils under stress. The findings from such an evaluation should be used to inform a strategy for the development of counselling support to pupils and their parents. In addition to issues such as the role of counsellors, appropriate qualifications and further professional development, a key issue will be whether counselling support should be school-based or provided independently of the school. I am pleased that I have secured some £350,000 from the Executive programme’s children fund to enable the work to proceed in the current year.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Does the Minister share my concern that the ban on his attendance at North/South Ministerial Council meetings delays progress on important issues relating to the education and protection of children across this island?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Of course I share that concern. I have already said that I regret that there has been no education sectoral meeting since 3 July 2000. I stress that I want to hold an education sectoral meeting as soon as possible so that work can be completed on these important matters relating to our children’s education.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Minister not accept that the abject failure of his party to make political progress on the arms issue is the main stumbling block to his nonattendance at North/South Ministerial Council meetings?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Were I to accept that analysis, I would effectively be turning the Good Friday Agreement on its head. I do not think that anyone has the right to do that. My work as Minister of Education must remain over and above the outstanding difficulties of the process. Important work needs to be done in the field of education. We have to co-operate with the Southern authorities to put in place the best possible education system, North and South, and it is vital that we continue with that work. I deal with issues of great importance to all children, no matter where they live or from what section of the community they come on this island. Absolutely nothing should be done by any Administration to inhibit that.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Instead of whingeing about the bad faith of the British Government and seeking to put forward his interpretation on the Good Friday Agreement, will the Minister and his party not face up to their responsibility to give up the means of terror and the acts of terror which are perpetrated in his name? Will the Minister tell the House what he intends —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The question to which we refer here was about the impact of the work of the North/South child protection working group. Will the Member please state how his question relates to the child protection working group?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Since it was the Minister who raised his non-participation in North/South bodies because of the actions which have been taken to ban him, I think that the reason for my question is fairly obvious.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member repeat the specific question?

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am more than happy to repeat the specific question.

Ms Jane Morrice: The question which relates to the question asked.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The Minister has told the House that the North/South bodies’ work on child protection has been affected by his inability to participate in them. Does he not therefore accept that his first responsibility to the House, and to those for whom he claims to wish to introduce protection, is to give up the means of terror and the acts of terror which have barred him from participating in the North/South bodies? Or does he intend to continue to abuse the court system which his Colleagues have blown up — and let us not forget the judges he has killed — to get redress for this?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Again, I hear a Unionist spokesperson attempt to turn the Good Friday Agreement on its head. Under the terms of the agreement, all the pro-agreement parties — including the two Governments — share a collective responsibility to resolve the issue of arms. I am certainly prepared to continue to fulfil my responsibilities in that regard.
The actions of the First Minister with respect to the North/South Ministerial Council have clearly not served to resolve this issue. The continuation of these actions must cause us to question his motivation. It is also worth remembering that the judicial review of the First Minister’s action ruled that the obstruction of one element of the agreement could not be justified on the basis of the promotion of another of its objectives. I contend that I, as a Minister in the Executive in the North and as a member of the North/South Ministerial Council, have done everything in my power to resolve the issue to which the Member refers.
There is a duty on all of us, not just those in the pro-agreement parties. There is a duty on the MLAs from the Democratic Unionist Party and other parties in the House to work with the rest of us to bring about the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Serious questions need to be asked about the way in which people have sought to abuse the Good Friday Agreement in their efforts to place the responsibility for dealing with the issues on the shoulders of one political party.

Special Educational Needs: North/South Group

Mr Mick Murphy: 3. asked the Minister of Education to detail (a) the tasks undertaken and tasks completed by the North/South special education co-ordination group and (b) when this group will formally report.
(AQO 1283/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The last education sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council took place on 3July 2000. At that time none of the working groups, including the special education working group, had reported back to the Council. I reported that position when I made my statement to the Assembly on 11 September 2000.
A further education sectoral meeting of the Council was planned for late November but did not take place. Thus, no formal report of the working group has yet been made. I am unable to provide specific details of the work completed so far, as I am bound by the procedures of the Assembly and by the ministerial code. These require me first to report progress to the Executive and then, by way of a statement, to this Assembly after the next sectoral meeting takes place.
I stress that I wish to hold an education sectoral meeting of the Council as soon as possible to enable the working groups to report back so that decisions can be taken, thus avoiding further delay in progressing the important issues that the working groups have been considering.

Mr Mick Murphy: Can the Minister outline any steps he has taken, or intends to take, to ensure that North/ South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings on education take place in the near future?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Member will be aware that I took this matter to the courts, and the actions of the First Minister were found to be unlawful. Officials from my Department have, on my behalf, served formal notice on the North/South secretariat that I am seeking a North/ South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on education at the earliest possible date. I recently met with the British Secretary of State, John Reid, and outlined my view of the options available to him in the event of the First Minister’s continuing to act unlawfully. I will, of course, consider the various legal options open to me arising from any repetition of the refusal by the First Minister to nominate me to attend the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Derek Hussey: I concur with the position of my Colleague Mr Kennedy and the support for that line from MrSammy Wilson. I am sure that the Minister realises that the solution lies with himself and his own party. Will the Minister detail, by subject and date, those educational matters on which he has requested a North/South Ministerial Council meeting since July 2000?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Since July 2000 we have been looking to progress all the matters that I outlined earlier in the course of my answers. I do not intend to waste the time of the Assembly by repeating those issues, but I am sure that the Member and his party are well aware of them.
It is important that we get these matters into perspective. The duty and responsibility of Members, and of myself as a member of the Executive, is to ensure that we make politics work and continue with what has been a considerable amount of good work done since the Assembly and the Executive were established.
The vast majority of people on the outside, who watch these proceedings with considerable interest, want to see politics and politicians working on their behalf. As Minister of Education, I have tried to work on behalf of everyone in the community without fear or favour. It is important that I be allowed to do my job to the fullest and that no obstacles be placed in my way. I am one of those people who believe that if we can press on to make politics work, all the difficult outstanding issues that create problems for people on the Unionist side can be resolved.

Assumption Grammar School (Ballynahinch)

Mr Eddie McGrady: 5. asked the Minister of Education to detail the steps he is taking to provide capital expenditure for an extension programme at Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch; and to make a statement.
(AQO1260/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I fully accept the need to extend and refurbish the accommodation at Assumption Grammar School. The school was considered for a place in the capital programme, which I announced last month, but it was not possible to include it, given the resources available to me. The school continues to have a high priority in the distribution of capital funding, and it will be reconsidered next year.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I remind the Minister that, when he wrote to me on 17 October, he said that his Department fully accepts the need to extend and refurbish the accommodation at Assumption Grammar and that planning for this was at an advanced stage. He now accepts that that is the situation and that despite the advanced stage which had been reached last October, a decision on funding has now been put off until next year. I can only question what is meant by "priority" in the case of Assumption Grammar School in Ballynahinch and the other very urgent case of St Patrick’s Grammar School, Downpatrick. These two voluntary grammar schools, which are in my constituency, have not received any of these grants, despite the Department’s admission that they have high-priority need. Is the imposition of a waiting period of 12 months, plus an additional period, a correct interpretation of the word "priority"?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Member will know, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that around 30 schools were competing for a place in the schools capital building programme, totalling some £200 million. I sympathise with every school which eagerly anticipated the announcement of the awards to be made under this year’s programme. This is always a very difficult matter for any Minister to deal with, simply because of the very limited resources available. The school is still a high priority. I accept the arguments put forward by Mr McGrady on behalf of his constituents, and I appreciate that, as Minister of Education, I have a duty to continue to lobby the Executive as best I can to acquire as much funding as possible to alleviate the difficulties experienced by many schools such as Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch, St Patrick’s Grammar School, Downpatrick, and others throughout the North.

Nursery and Primary Schools: Healthy Eating Programme

Mr John Dallat: 6. asked the Minister of Education to detail his plans for encouraging the consumption of milk and yoghurt in nursery and primary schools as part of the healthy eating programme.
(AQO 1290/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: My Department is committed to encouraging the consumption of milk and dairy products, including yoghurt, in schools. Last year, when the European Commission reduced the subsidy payable under the EU’s school milk scheme, through which nursery and primary pupils may purchase milk at a subsidised price, my Department, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety agreed to co-fund the shortfall to ensure that the cost to pupils would not increase. My Department is also preparing a consultation paper on the implementation of new compulsory nutritional standards for school lunches. The proposed standards will require every school lunch for nursery and primary pupils to contain milk or dairy products, and drinking milk will be required as an available option every day.

Mr John Dallat: I am sure the Minister will agree that, at the moment, good news for the agriculture industry would be most welcome. Does he agree that this is an opportunity to develop an interdepartmental approach, which would enhance the health of our children while promoting Northern Ireland dairy products? Will he undertake to continue his discussions with his ministerial Colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health so that the health of our children, and of our dairy industry, can be protected?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Yes. I agree that it would make sense if every Department continued to exercise cross-departmental co-operation. Many will know that, under the Executive programme funds, there are opportunities for co-operation between Departments. The Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should continue to consider these opportunities.
That said, a considerable amount of work is still being done, and we are at pains to continue to review the situation to ensure that there is a very high nutritional standard in schools.

Western Education and Library Board: Payment of Bills

Mrs Annie Courtney: 7. asked the Minister of Education to ascertain the procedure adopted by the Western Education and Library Board for payment of bills to small contractors.
(AQO 1279/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have been advised by the chief executive of the Western Education and Library Board that the board pays its trade creditors in accordance with the better payment code and Government accounting rules. On receipt of an invoice from a contractor the work is inspected and approved by the appropriate staff. The approved invoice is then sent for payment to the board’s accounts department, which ensures that where relevant the requirements of the construction industry’s tax scheme are complied with before payment is made.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I am glad that the Minister’s response means that the Department’s guidelines and Government guidelines are complied with. He may be aware that in the past some small firms have been forced out of business because money just did not come through in time. I refer in particular to the Derry City Council area, so I am glad that the Minister is now taking an interest in it. I hope that systems will be put in place; that those which are in place will be adhered to; and that firms will not go out of business again.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I understand that the Western Education and Library Board paid over 60% of invoices within 30 days of the invoice date over the financial periods 1998-99 to 2000-01. The last audited figure was 63% in 1998.
The chief executive has assured me that the board is extremely conscious of the need to ensure prompt payment of invoices. To that end, it has developed and implemented new procedures and payment arrangements continually to improve on past performance. Of course I sympathise greatly with the plight and difficulty of businesses, particularly small firms who find it very difficult. I can assure the Member that I am very conscious of the need to ensure that we continue to improve our performance.

Services for Hearing-Impaired Children (Ards Borough)

Mr Tom Hamilton: 8. asked the Minister of Education to detail what services are available to children with hearing difficulties at schools in the Ards Borough Council area.
(AQO1269/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I understand from the South Eastern Education and Library Board that four different levels of service are provided for children with hearing difficulties in the Ards Borough Council area. These are: support teaching from the board’s peripatetic teaching service for the hearing-impaired; classroom assistance in mainstream schools; weekly hearing aid checks; and annual — or more frequently if requested by the school — hearing tests of those with fluctuating hearing loss but no hearing aids. Weekly and annual checks and tests are carried out by peripatetic teachers of the hearing-impaired.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I represent one of the largest growing consituencies in Northern Ireland of which the Ards borough comprises a considerable portion. Can the Minister tell me the exact number of places that are available for each of the four different levels of service he has described? I have a sheaf of letters in my office from residents of the Ards borough who have children with hearing difficulties and cannot get them placements for aid.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Currently, seven children receive support teaching, four receive classroom assistance, 13 have weekly hearing aid checks, and 29 have annual or more frequent hearing tests. A special education unit for the hearing-impaired was attached to Donaghadee High School and another existed at Rathmore Primary School in Bangor in the adjoining North Down Borough Council area. Neither of these units is currently in operation because there are insufficient hearing-impaired pupils in the schools’ catchment areas. If demand for these services were to increase, the South Eastern Education and Library Board would consider reinstating them.

Department Budget

Mr Paul Berry: 9. asked the Minister of Education to detail the budget for his Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
(AQO1267/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The budgets allocated to the present Department of Education since it was created in 1999-2000 were £1,165 million, and £1,274 million for the year 2000-01. These relate to the services for which the new Department is responsible — schools, youth provision and their associated services.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to inform Members that question 11, in the name of Mr McGrady, and question 12, in the name of Mr Fee, have been withdrawn.

North/South Ministerial Council

Ms Sue Ramsey: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail what progress has been made by the Health, Social Services and Public Safety working group set up under the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 1281/00)

Mr Alex Maskey: 8. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail those areas which are unable to be advanced as a result of not holding a North/South Ministerial Council in health sectoral format.
(AQO 1306/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, freagróidh mé ceisteanna 1 agus 8 le chéile ós rud é go mbaineann siad le comhoibriú Thuaidh/Theas.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall take questions 1 and 8 together, since they both relate to North/South co-operation.
Bunaíodh comhghrúpaí oibre faoi choimirce na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas le machnamh a dhéanamh ar an dóigh arbh fhéidir comhoibriú Thuaidh/ Theas ar chúrsaí sláinte a mhéadú i gach ceann de na cúig réimsí aitheanta: seirbhísí taismí agus éigeandálaí, pleanáil éigeandálaí, trealamh ardteicneolaíochta, taighde ar ailsí agus cur chun cinn na sláinte. Bhí sraith cruinnithe ar leibhéal oifigiúil ann cheana féin. Cuireadh cruinniú earnála ar shláinte agus ar shábháilteacht bia a socraíodh don 3 Samhain ar ceal cionnas gur sháraigh an Chéad-Aire ar a dhualgas reachtúil a chomhlíonadh de réir mhír 52 d’Acht TÉ 1998 le hAirí cuí a ainmniú don chruinniú.
Joint working groups were set up under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council to consider how North/South co-operation on health matters could be enhanced in five identified areas: accident and emergency services; emergency planning; high-technology equipment; cancer research; and health promotion. A series of meetings has taken place at official level. A sectoral meeting on health and food safety scheduled for 3 November 2000 was cancelled as a result of a breach by the First Minister of his statutory duty under section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make the necessary ministerial nominations for the meeting. This action by the First Minister, which has since been ruled unlawful by the High Court, continues to hamper further progress.
The absence of North/South Ministerial Council meetings has meant that there has been a lack of strategic ministerial direction on the work being taken forward in each of the five areas, as envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement. It is also having a detrimental effect on the working of the Food Safety Promotion Board, and, as a result, the implementation of proposals for enhanced co-operation, which would be beneficial for people, North and South, has been delayed.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Does the Minister agree that any continuing obstruction of the work of the North/South Ministerial Council will erode confidence in the political institutions?
Will she further agree that the acquiescence to such an obstruction by the British Secretary of State, John Reid, places the British Government in breach of an international agreement?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I share the concerns expressed by the Member and regret that I was unable to hear her properly because of the disruption in the Chamber.
Paragraph 13 of strand two of the Good Friday Agreement states clearly that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Assembly are mutually dependent and that one cannot function successfully without the other. Therefore, any continuing obstruction of the workings of the North/South Ministerial Council, in sectoral or plenary format, will have serious implications. It will impede the work of the institutions and erode confidence in them.
The North/South Ministerial Council is the subject of an international agreement between the British and Irish Governments, and while it is a matter for the Irish Government to consider the options open to them, it is obvious that the continuing obstruction of the workings of the North/South Ministerial Council will have a damaging effect on all of us.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. Can the Minister outline any steps that she has taken or intends to take to ensure that a sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on health and food safety takes place in the near future?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Like my Colleague, the Minister of Education, officials from my Department have on my behalf formally notified the North/South secretariat that I am seeking a North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on health and food safety at the earliest possible date. I have also written to the British Secretary of State, JohnReid, on two occasions reminding him of the powers available to him under section26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to direct the First Minister to carry out his statutory duty to make nominations to the Council. I have recently met separately with both John Reid and Taoiseach BertieAhern. I outlined my view of the options available to them in the event of the First Minister’s continuing to act unlawfully. I will consider the various legal options available to me if there is any repetition of the First Minister’s refusal to nominate me to attend the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Derek Hussey: It seems as though we have returned to the first ministerial set of questions and answers. I would remind the Minister that the solution to her problem lies with herself, her ministerial Colleague and the rest of her party.
When I asked the Minister of Education a question, which the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must have heard, I did not receive an answer, so I wonder whether I will receive one on this occasion. Will the Minister detail, by subject and date, those health, social services and public safety issues for which she has requested that a North/South Ministerial Council meeting be held? Or, like her ministerial Colleague, has she not even bothered to request them?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: If the Member wishes to look at the press release of 3November following the sectoral meeting in Enniskillen, he will see details of the issues that were dealt with at that meeting that were of great benefit to the people of Ireland, North and South. Those were the issues to be dealt with at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that I requested yet was not able to attend because of the First Minister’s breach in refusing to nominate me.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister has not answered the question.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have answered the question; I am answering the question. Since then I have instructed my officials to request another meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. For example, members of my staff and those from the Department in Dublin have held meetings on accident and emergency services in Belfast and Dublin to identify areas for enhancing co-operation in cancer services, staff training, development and exchange. Those are five matters that I would like to take up.
There are reviews of renal services to exchange information. There is a North/South paper, still at the development stage, on proposals for further local inter-hospital collaborative projects. That was discussed at the meeting in Enniskillen under the auspices of co-operation and working together (CAWT). The question of the Food Safety Promotion Board also needs to be dealt with. That board’s work is being held back because it has been unable to appoint permanent staff. It continues to operate with an interim chief executive and has not been able to obtain agreement on a strategic plan. The establishment of the scientific advisory committee on nutrition (SACN) awaits approval by the North/South Ministerial Council, and its formal appointment is essential to underpin the board’s credibility. That is all happening at a time when the agrifood industry is at its lowest ebb and people need help and guidance.
On the issue of planning for major emergencies, as Members will know from previous questions, a working group has been asked to look at the question of an air ambulance service. In the Fire Service, papers are under review on current co-operation, fire safety education awareness and co-ordination of cross-border responses to road traffic accidents. Those will be dealt with at a meeting of the working group.
Those are all matters which, when prepared, will go in front of the North/South Ministerial Council, should such a meeting be held. I am running out of time, but there are matters that relate to the operation of high-technology equipment and hospital, and community-related, emergency planning. There are further questions about the area of health promotion, including projects we wish to take forward that were discussed at the last meeting. Some of those relate to health in the workplace; others, such as smoking, particularly by young girls in school, will be discussed in conjunction with the Minister of Education. Those and other health promotion issues are ones that we wish to deal with at the next Ministerial Council meeting. The five different areas of co-operation and the work that the Food Safety Promotion Board needs to do at this critical time will be dealt with at the next possible opportunity.
We have the question of whether co-operation to date in plenary meetings has brought to light issues on which we might wish to expand the present co-operation and put forward ideas for a further work programme for the coming year. I hope that answers the Member’s question.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member asked for detail, and he certainly got as much if not more detail than he wanted. [Interruption].
I have been asked to take a point of order. Points of order come at the end of questions.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister not find it odd that, at a time when she claims her Department is short of money and the budget is tight, she has spent money fighting political battles through the British court system, which IRA/Sinn Féin has consistently tried physically to destroy? Perhaps she will explain to the House why, given the antipathy of IRA/Sinn Féin towards the British Government and everything British, she has, by her own admission, written two begging letters to a British Secretary of State asking him to support her getting a North/South meeting called?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Member has, as usual, asked a question in his own inimitable style. I suggest that he look at the Hansard record, which will show that I clearly said that I was reminding the British Secretary of State of the powers available to him under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to direct the First Minister to carry out his statutory duty. I was also perfectly capable of doing that in person on the occasion that I met with the British Secretary of State.
I do not have a variety of different court systems to choose from, so I happily use the one available to me. I do so because I am the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for all of society — for those constituents that the Member represents as well as for my own constituents; for those whom he represents in political outlook as well as for those whom my political outlook represents. My ability to do my duty for all of those people is being hampered by the continued refusal of the First Minister to nominate me to meetings of the North/ South Ministerial Council.
I also refer the Member to previous answers in which I have shown that the co-operation that we have been able to achieve, specifically in relation to health promotion issues, has been cost-effective and has saved us all money.

Alcoholism: Drinks Marketing

Mr John Dallat: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to indicate what research she is undertaking to measure the influence of drinks marketing techniques on the rate of alcoholism.
(AQO1305/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Sheol mé ‘Straitéis an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin leis an Dochar Alcól-Ghaolmhar a Laghdú’ an fómhar seo caite. Ceanglaíonn seo de thrí chuspóir ghinearálta sinn: ar an chéad dul síos, dearcadh ciallmhar ar an ólachán a chothú; ar an dara dul síos, seirbhísí éifeachtacha cóireála a chur chun cinn; agus ar an tríú dul síos, daoine aonair agus comhphobail a chosaint ar an dochar a fhéadann mí-úsáid alcóil a dhéanamh.
Last autumn I launched the strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm, which commits us to three broad objectives. These are to encourage a sensible approach to drinking; to promote effective treatment services; and to protect individuals and communities from the damage that alcohol misuse can cause.
Within the framework established by the strategy my Department is working to develop an information and research programme. Priorities for the research programme will be set through consultation with a wide range of organisations and agencies. That will provide an opportunity to analyse and assess local drinking patterns and behaviours, including the influence of factors such as marketing techniques.

Mr John Dallat: The vast majority of people involved in the drinks trade are decent, honourable people who share my concerns. Does the Minister agree that some of the marketing techniques referred to that promote alcohol — for example, "two for the price of one", happy hours and other attractions such as prizes and awards — could be a cause of increased alcoholism for some?
Will the Minister ensure that there is very close monitoring of such promotions in the drinks trade, so that her Department is in a position to make sound judgements about possible links between questionable marketing and alcoholism? Her Department could then take appropriate measures to counteract such practices.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I certainly share the Member’s concern about such marketing techniques. The strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm highlights that as an issue that should be pursued.
We will take the opportunity, through the implementation of the strategy, to highlight again the advertising codes of the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority. Those codes state that
"Particular care should be taken to ensure that advertisements for sales promotions requiring multiple purchases do not actively encourage excessive consumption."
We will also work with the drinks industry to address common areas of concern. We aim to have agreed joint policies for enhancing responsible trading next year, having reviewed the whole issue of responsible trading with the drinks industry, local strategy implementation groups and other interested bodies.

Mrs Joan Carson: Is the Minister not aware that a major part of the European Declaration on Alcohol is a commitment to ensure that young people can grow up without undue exposure to the promotion of alcohol? Will her Department give specific attention to researching the correlation between drinks marketing techniques and binge drinking among young people?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Again, I share the Member’s concerns about marketing techniques, and I refer her to the answer that I gave on the points that we will be taking forward.
The specific link between marketing and binge drinking is certainly another aspect that must be examined with regard to the implementation of that part of the strategy. We certainly know that binge drinking is a particular problem here.
We know from a health promotion survey of adult drinking patterns carried out in 1999 that males who drank 10 units or more and females who drank seven units or more in one sitting were classified as having participated in a binge drinking session. Under that criteria, even at that time, 39% of male drinkers and 28% of female drinkers had experienced a binge drinking session in the week prior to the survey.
We will be taking specific measures to look at the question of binge drinking by young people. However, as I have said, the priorities for the research programme will be set through consultation with a wide range of organisations and agencies, which will provide the opportunity to address, to assess and to analyse that as an issue that needs to be researched.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister indicate what measures are in place to target under-age drinking and to educate young people about the dangers of under-age drinking?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Under-age drinking must be tackled seriously. It is an offence for licensees or their employees to sell alcohol to anyone under 18 years of age, and it is an offence for anyone under 18 to buy alcohol or present themselves as being over 18 for the purpose of buying alcohol. We will review the adequacy of the current controls as one element in the implementation of the alcohol strategy. As part of the school curriculum all young people receive health education to discourage them from under-age drinking. The curriculum includes education on alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. The Health Promotion Agency has also carried out research and delivered public information programmes.
Further work under the new alcohol strategy will develop a health promotion and education programme targeted at children and young people. The programme will provide training for teachers, other educators and youth workers. The target date for the development of these programmes is December 2001.

Ulster Hospital

Mrs Eileen Bell: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the current situation in the Ulster Hospital as regards (a) waiting lists, (b) intensive care unit (ICU) staffing and (c) the general financial situation of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust.
(AQO 1257/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is don ráithe a chríochnaíonn ar 31 Nollaig 2000 a thagraíonn an t-eolas is déanaí atá ar fáil ar liostaí feithimh. Ag an am sin, bhí 3,605 duine ag fanacht le dul isteach in Otharlann Uladh mar othair chónaitheacha.
Cruinnítear eolas ar dhaoine atá ag fanacht lena gcéad choinne othair sheachtraigh ar bhonn iontaobhais agus chan ar bhonn otharlainne. Ag deireadh Nollag 2000, bhí 15,406 duine ag fanacht lena gcéad choinne othair sheachtraigh ag Iontaobhas Phobal agus Otharlanna Uladh.
The latest information available on waiting lists refers to the quarter ending 31 December 2000. At that time 3,605 people were waiting for inpatient admission to the Ulster Hospital. Information on people waiting for their first outpatient appointment is collected on the basis of trust rather than hospital. At the end of December 2000, 15,406 people were waiting for their first outpatient appointment at the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust. The current staffing levels in the intensive care unit are adequate, having been increased in the past year.
A reference was made to the general financial situation of the trust. My Department has recently allocated an additional £1·35 million to enable the trust to deal with its cumulative deficit at the end of this financial year. My Department is also engaged in ensuring that the trust has an agreed recovery plan that will enable it to maintain financial stability in future years.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for her answer, especially with regard to the financial situation. From the time that the Ulster Hospital was built, it has been promised extra money, and it is good that a local Minister is allocating that money now because it is really needed. Anyone who has been in the Ulster Hospital will be aware of that. Does the Minister accept that money is needed for the casualty unit tomorrow — in fact, it was needed yesterday — to ensure that recent incidents do not recur and that waiting lists are reduced as quickly as possible?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Some aspects of the programme for the Ulster Hospital were implemented urgently because we understood the need for them. My Department acted quickly to address the individual deficit problems at the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust, and other trusts, by requiring formal recovery plans from the relevant organisations. We understand the need for capital investment for the business case that the trust has been working on and has brought to us. We will give it our consideration.

Dr Ian Adamson: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
There are many "ologies" in medicine — and I am sure that the Minister has met quite a few of them — ranging from anthropology to zoology. I am sure that she has met a bit of "codology" as well. Dermotology services are one of the Cinderellas of medicine. Can the Minister detail the present state of the dermotology services in the Ulster Hospital and how they are to be developed because of the increase of skin cancer in our area?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As regards waiting lists, dermatology is one of the three main specialities accounting for the majority of the change in the numbers of people waiting for both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Clearly, there is a need for work in this area. The majority of the change can be accounted for by dermatology, plastic surgery and trauma, and orthopaedics. We have taken that matter on board.
However, part of the change is due to an increase in referrals and in emergency admissions to the Ulster Hospital in respect of these specialities, including dermatology. The trust also undertook a programme of work to rationalise the process by which referrals are sent by GPs, and that has led to the trust dealing with a number of referrals that, in the past, would have been referred to other trusts. That is something that we need to take on board and to look out for in the future.

Ms Jane Morrice: In answer to the previous question, I do not think that there is a treatment for "codology".

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I am interested in the 3,605 waiting list patients in general. However, can the Minister tell us what percentage of operating theatre time is lost because of theatre staff non-availability — in other words, where nurses or theatre support staff are not available, yet surgeons and others are?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I cannot give a specific percentage of operating time lost, but I certainly share the Member’s concern regarding the availability of nursing specialists. That has been the case in waiting lists generally, and in some specialities more than others the availability of theatre time and staff has impacted on waiting lists. The Member will be aware that we have looked not only at the question of increasing nursing numbers — and we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 100 places each year for the next three years — but specifically at specialities within that area. That is something that will be addressed.

Lagan Valley Hospital A&E Department

Mr Francie Molloy: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to explain how Lagan Valley Hospital was granted permission to build a new accident and emergency department before the acute hospitals review group has given its report on acute services.
(AQO 1298/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is é atá san obair ar an roinn taismí agus éigeandálaí ag Ospidéal Ghleann an Lagáin ná athchóiriú na n-áiseanna reatha le cinntiú go gcoinneofar na seirbhísí atá ann faoi láthair. Chuir mé in iúl go soiléir nár cheart d’obair an athbhreithnithe ar ghéarospidéil aon bhac a chur ar sholáthar leanúnach seirbhísí. Ní gá don iontaobhas cead a iarraidh ar an Roinn le tabhairt faoin obair mar nach dtéann na costais chaipitil thar £500,000.
The work on the accident and emergency department at Lagan Valley Hospital is, in fact, the refurbishment of the current facilities to ensure the maintenance of existing services. I have made it clear that the continued delivery of services should not be impeded by the work of the acute hospitals review group. The trust does not require permission from the Department to undertake the work, as capital costs do not exceed £500,000.

Mr Francie Molloy: Is the Minister aware that this is a manoeuvre being pulled by the trust to ensure that it does not have to get approval and that the cost, as discussed by the trust, is more likely to be in excess of £700,000 when equipment, and so on, is in place? The Department has said that accident and emergency units, or variations of them, should not be changed until the Hayes review of acute services is delivered. The danger is that if this refurbishment takes place — or what I see as a completely new accident and emergency unit, publicly advertised as such by the trust itself — it could make the Hayes review redundant.
At the same time, in my area hospital, the South Tyrone Hospital, the accident and emergency unit has been closed for 12 months, and people are on long waiting lists in Craigavon. We need to view this not as refurbishing —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Will the Member please put a question to the Minister?

Mr Francie Molloy: Does she accept that this does not constitute refurbishment and that the actual cost will be in excess of £700,000 rather than £500,000?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the work on the capital costs will exceed £500,000. If that is found to be the case, the trust will require the Department’s permission, and I will have to take the matter up with that trust. However, on the basis that the acute hospitals review should not affect the continued delivery of high-quality services, I expect trusts to take the action necessary to ensure that patient services are up to standard. That includes continued refurbishment, where necessary, in hospitals.

Ms Jane Morrice: Our time is up. I thank the Minister.

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order 19(5), the Speaker may from time to time consult the Business Committee on the need to provide additional time for questions. Will the Minister examine the length of some of the answers given? By ensuring that answers are brief and to the point, additional time could be created, and this would enable us to get further than question 4 on the Order Paper.

Ms Jane Morrice: There are two other points of order.

Mr Billy Armstrong: In answer to an earlier question, the Minister said that she was not able to fulfil her duties because of her party’s exclusion from the North/South bodies. If that party and its associates were to decommission their weapons and explosives, they would not have a problem.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order. Will the Member please refer to the Standing Order to which he is referring.

Mr Billy Armstrong: The Minister said that she is not able to carry out her duties because of her non-attendance at North/South bodies. She could do a good deal of work here in Northern Ireland.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I have ruled that this is not a point of order.

Mr Ivan Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the fact that just four oral questions have been answered this afternoon, will the Minister not consider in future, as a courtesy to the House, answering all the questions in English, as this would not take up so much time?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: We have been over this matter several times, and the time taken up by answers in Irish has no impact. Members should consider that oral questions — not written questions — comprising parts (a), (b) and (c) are allowed and that that has a clear impact on the length of answer that a Minister is expected to give.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. These points of order have been responded to by the Minister, and that has prolonged this section of Question Time. I will respond to the points of order that have been made. Five questions have been dealt with during this 30-minute period. The first question was amalgamated with question 8. It is important that points relating to the length of questions and their responses be brought to the Business Committee by the Whips. That is where these issues should be discussed.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With reference to the last point of order, I will take guidance from you, but, in my opinion, it was inappropriate for you to refer that question to the Minister. The Standing Order that Mr Davis was referring to is an Order of this House.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The question which was originally introduced as a point of order was not referred by the Deputy Speaker to the Minister. The Minister sought to respond immediately on her own behalf.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order for you to step in when it is clear that the Minister is filibustering to avoid later questions?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. That is not a point of order. We must move on.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With regard to the points of order on the Irish language, if proper translation facilities were available in the House, there would be no need to hold up the debate.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Time is up. We must move on.

Finance and Personnel

Ms Jane Morrice: Question number 12 in the name of John Fee has been withdrawn.

Access to Children’s Fund

Mrs Annie Courtney: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail when the children’s fund can be accessed by organisations other than Government Departments.
(AQO 1287/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive propose to consult with the voluntary and community sector on arrangements for the children’s fund. An interdepartmental working group has been established to work with the voluntary and community sector with a view to putting in place the necessary arrangements so that funding can be allocated in September 2001.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Can the Minister confirm how much remains in the children’s fund following his first round of allocations? Will he ensure that those voluntary and community organisations with valuable advice and input to give in this area will be consulted on the best use of the remaining resources?

Mr Mark Durkan: There is £29 million in the Executive programme fund entitled the children’s fund. Based on the previous announcements made in the House, we have allocated £10 million. That leaves £19 million. We have not determined the precise balances that are to be allocated to direct bids from the community and voluntary sector or to the bids from Departments. Even those areas of the fund that have been subject to bids generated by specific Departments or between Departments can have application to the community and voluntary sector. It is not the case that bids from Departments would simply be confined to Government activity. They could also fund activity in other sectors. We have an amount of money in the fund that can assist the community and voluntary sector where there are good proposals.

Mr Alan McFarland: Can the Minister assure me that priority in the allocation of funds to non-governmental organisations will be given to established children’s charities rather than to bureaucratic intermediary bodies, thereby ensuring that children themselves benefit from this innovative programme?

Mr Mark Durkan: One of the things that the Executive want to achieve with Executive programme funds is maximum direct benefit to the community and to particular services. However, we also want to ensure that there is a good strategic impact. There will also be many instances, not least in the children’s fund, where some of the funding will be to pilot schemes, or pilot initiatives, that could include some direct services. This might also involve some developmental work being undertaken by bodies that might be classified as intermediary bodies or bodies that are representing a wider service interest. What we would be trying not to do is to have the funds soaked up by schemes or projects that are not of themselves adding new, additional or developmental benefit. We cannot say at this stage that particular priority or preference will be given to certain organisations above others.

Peace II Money: Distribution

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if it is his intention to ring-fence Peace II money to ensure equitable distribution.
(AQO1301/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: The funding to be allocated under the Peace II programme has been agreed by the Executive, and the respective financial allocations for each priority and measure are specified in the operational programme which was formally agreed with the European Commission on 22 March.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am not sure what question the Minister was answering, but he did not address the issue of ring-fencing the Peace II money. Clearly, that was a problem with Peace I. Where money was ring-fenced, it was more equitably distributed.
Is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that Peace II is ring-fenced so that the Unionist community can get a piece of the cake and not just the crumbs that it received last time?

Mr Mark Durkan: I did address the issue in the question. I made it quite clear that the funding is available and will be allocated on the basis of the criteria that are set down in the operational programme and will be further defined in the programme complement. The community support framework provides a set of horizontal principles that will be fully adhered to. Monitoring arrangements are in place for the next Peace programme, and I believe that they are much stronger and more effective than in the last Peace programme.
I also believe that the Member’s latter point acknowledges that, notwithstanding many of the perceptions that have existed about this, progress has been made on this issue in ensuring that there has been a better spread of applications coming forward, and in turn there may be a healthier balance of allocations. Equality and balance are two of the key issues in the horizontal principles, and when we fully apply those measures in that way, people throughout the community will be satisfied with the outcome.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Minister confirm that the £6·67 million ring-fenced for victims is to be allocated specifically to the victims of terrorism? What sum has been ring-fenced to support ex-prisoners? Perhaps it would be better if such funding were allocated to ex-prisoners via non-ex-prisoner-type organisations, which would better assist the process of rehabilitation.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will manage the money in relation to victims. The junior Ministers have already spoken to the House about those plans. We have agreed the operational programmes. The programme complements have to be agreed, and that will include details of the precise measures and criteria. That is still to be determined.
The emphasis is that the funding will be for people who have suffered injury, bereavement or direct suffering as a result of violence in our community. Ex-prisoners’ groups and interests are eligible for consideration under a number of measures in the Peace II programme.

Peace II Programme: Community and Voluntary Sector

Mr Alex Maskey: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the role envisaged for the community and voluntary sector in respect of the Peace II programme.
(AQO 1304/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: The community and voluntary sector will continue to have an important role in Peace II overall, and, because the terms of reference for the new local strategy partnerships will be wider, the scope for that sector to influence strategic priorities at the local level should be increased.

Mr Alex Maskey: Does the Minister agree that a number of organisations and representatives from the voluntary and community sector have already made their concerns known to the Department in respect of the strategy partnership? Concerns have been expressed that the community and voluntary sector might be swamped by some of the more mainstream or statutory bodies.

Mr Mark Durkan: I acknowledge that that concern exists and has existed for many people in the community and voluntary sector. I have some sympathy with that. I am pleased to observe that many people in that sector have been reassured by the further plans and thinking that we have been able to show, particularly as we have agreed the Peace II operational programme. In turn, we have been able to concentrate on some of the more detailed issues of the transition to new partnership models.
Many of the fears that people had have now been seen to be ill-founded, and many are looking forward positively to the sort of prospects opening up for partnership in the new Peace programme. However, they are clearly conscious that the real test will be how things work in practice. If seized properly these new proposals will allow the community and voluntary sector not just to get a significant turn for itself, and those that it serves, out of the Peace II programme, but also to make a very significant contribution to the activities of other sectors.

Mr Jim Wilson: Can the Minister explain why it has taken two months to deal with the appointment of the intermediary funding bodies (IFBs) for Peace II? When does he expect a final decision to be made?

Mr Mark Durkan: I will try to avoid any issues of anticipation in this answer as the subject of the next question is also IFBs. I can assure the Member that there has been no delay. The advertisement calling for applications was published in January, with a closing date of 2 March. A significant number of applications were received. It is a competitive process, and those applications have had to be processed and evaluated. In that sense two months is not a delay; rather it is a reasonable time for the submission and consideration of bids. We are now hoping to move forward.

Peace II Programme: Intermediary Funding Bodies

Mr Eddie McGrady: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what bodies will be selected as intermediary funding bodies for the delivery of funds from the Peace II Programme; and to make a statement.
(AQO 1258/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: As I just said, at the end of January an advertisement was placed in newspapers, North and South, asking for interested organisations to submit tender applications for apppointment as IFBs under Peace II by 2 March 2001. An independent evaluation of the tenders received has been completed by outside consultants, and the results will be considered by the selection steering group later this week. The selection process is expected to be concluded next month.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply and his answers to the previous supplementaries. However, considering that the Rural Development Council has already achieved a very high level of expertise and has a proven track record in delivering funds from the first Peace programme, what assurances can the Minister give that it can and will be selected as an intermediary funding body for the delivery of those programmes that pertain to the rural community?
In the interim, what will the Minister do to ensure the sustainability of ongoing programmes, which have been so important in the rural communities?

Mr Mark Durkan: The process for selection of IFBs for the next programme has been an open and competitive process and still has fully to run its course. The consultants will be referring their consideration on the proposals submitted to the steering group later this week. Therefore I cannot anticipate that any group, which may or may not have tendered for this, will be successful. It would clearly be inappropriate for me to enter into any speculation, never mind give any commitments in that regard. However, I am happy to recognise the very strong, important and invaluable contribution that all the intermediary funding bodies have made to the success of Peace I and that many of them make in a number of other fields through their other responsibilities and efforts as well.
As for gap funding, we are trying to ensure that we are open for applications before the summer to minimise the gap. In the meantime interim funding opportunities are available. Groups that were previously funded from intermediary funding bodies are eligible to apply. Individual projects have received information through advertisements and through responses to specific requests.
If the Member has any particular concerns about the working of these arrangements, I will be happy to look at them.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Minister indicate the criteria used to determine the effectiveness of the intermediary funding bodies under Peace I, and if success in giving, or more often than not failure to give, a fair and equitable geographical and community spread of the previous funding will be taken into consideration when appointing new intermediary funding bodies?

Mr Mark Durkan: I have to be careful about being drawn in too deeply in reply to the Member’s question, because it asks me to speak specifically about the performance of groups as intermediary funding bodies in Peace I, and many of those groups have tendered to be such bodies in Peace II. I cannot associate myself with some of the pejorative references in the Member’s remarks concerning the performance of those intermediary funding bodies, because it would be prejudicial to the selection process.
I reiterate that I am happy to acknowledge the important and valuable contribution of intermediary funding bodies in difficult territory. The issues the Member raises about the difficulty in satisfying everybody in geographical spread and community balance are not confined to intermediary funding bodies or to programmes funded by the European Union.

Procurement

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to confirm that current policy on procurement operates on the lowest common denominator of value for money; and to make a statement.
(AQO 1277/00)

Mr John Dallat: 6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what progress has been made on the procurement review.
(AQO 1288/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 5 and 6 together as they both deal with public procurement policy.
As I stated to the Assembly on 12 March 2001, current policy is that all public procurement is to be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. Value for money is defined as the optimum combination of whole-life cost and quality or fitness for purpose to meet the users’ requirements.
The implementation team that has been established to make progress on the findings and recommendations of the initial procurement review has met on four occasions and is planning to engage in public consultation during May. This will assist in bringing forward proposals that take account of the equality dimension for consideration by the Executive Committee in June.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his reply, which I think was "Yes", although I had some difficulty in interpreting it. On the assumption that it was a "Yes", and that all we currently have is a lowest common denominator, let me quote to the Minister, from a 1999 report, the second half of the sentence from which I took my question:
"…there is insufficient management information to measure achievement against such a policy."
Will the Minister tell the House whether in the last two years any management information has come to hand and what his estimates might be of the potential benefits of properly implementing a value-for-money policy?

Mr Mark Durkan: As I have indicated previously on the procurement issue, one reason that we are now involved in the implementation exercise is precisely to make good the sort of gaps and deficiencies that the report identified — gaps and deficiencies that probably surprised many of us, and that included management and information. The implementation exercise will look at that important issue among others. It is important for value for money and also for other relevant public procurement considerations.

Mr John Dallat: The Minister will be aware that a number of recent reports produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General are highly damaging to public confidence. Can the Minister confirm that the findings of the review team will take account of the equality issues involved in procurement and will ensure that all proper procurement procedures suggested by the review will be followed? We do not want a repeat of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s printing contract shambles, and we want to ensure that the opportunity to operate cosy cartels or golden circles is gone from the procurement process for ever.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the Assembly has a major task to perform in that regard.

Mr Mark Durkan: A number of concerns have been raised for Members by Audit Office reports that, among other things, have looked at some procurement issues, and they are not confined to the one mentioned by Mr Dallat. There are others. The implementation exercise in which the Department of Finance and Personnel is engaged should try to ensure that the new arrangements that operate should also serve to help prevent any repeat of those difficulties.
The Department of Finance and Personnel wants all Departments to use the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA). The Department wants to make sure that the practices, procedures and opportunities available to the GPA in respect of value for money, probity, fairness and equality are used to serve the public that the Assembly represents. Equality considerations are a significant dimension to the work of the implementation exercise. The Department of Finance and Personnel wants to make sure that public procurement is conducted in the public interest and that the Executive are paying as little as they need to for good services and goods. The Department also wants to ensure that everybody is able to compete on a fair and equitable basis to provide services or goods under public procurement.

Peace II Partnership Models

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give details of the consultation involved in the process of drawing up the arrangements for the new partnership models in Peace II.
(AQO 1286/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: Last October, I set up a working group that consisted of representatives of district councils, district partnerships and intermediary funding bodies. The purpose of that working group was to draw up proposals for best developing the role and functions of partnerships in each district council area in the new Peace programme and more widely. The working group’s proposals were endorsed by the Executive in December, and arrangements for their implementation were discussed at a colloquy in Ballymena on 31 January attended by representatives of all the organisations that had been involved in the delivery of Peace I.
Following that, the chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body convened a focus group to draft guidelines for the formation and operation of the new partnership model. Throughout that period there were also consultations with the European Commission on the development of the new partnership model.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Given the many excellent initiatives that have come to fruition as a result of the effort and energy of the voluntary and community sector, will the Minister confirm that as a result of his actions there will be no downgrading of the role of that sector? Will he confirm that, on the contrary, the sector’s influence will increase so that the concept of partnership will develop and continue long after the EU moneys have been spent?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his questions and concur with his positive assessment of the contribution that the partnerships have made to the success of Peace I and, as a result of that contribution, to wider efforts at local and regional levels. The partnerships have had a pathfinding role, and the community and voluntary sector has played a positive defining role. That is something that I want to see not only continued but developed as well.
I repeat the assurances that I have given in the House and in meetings with the community and voluntary sector. The Department of Finance and Personnel is concerned with seeing the partnership model succeed and flourish — not in ways in which it is just confined or in gateways to a particular EU programme, but where it can influence and inform strategic progress across a number of sectors.
The community and voluntary sector will be well placed to continue to make a significant and positive contribution in that regard. There will be challenges for that sector in the new partnership model. There will also be challenges for other sectors, not least the statutory sector.

Peace and Reconciliation: EU Structural Funds

Mr Paul Berry: 8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to state what impact European Union structural funds have had in achieving peace and reconciliation in each section of the community.
(AQO 1265/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: A full assessment of the impact of structural fund programmes is a major research project which cannot be undertaken until the programmes in question have ended. The ex post evaluations of the 1994-99 NorthernIreland single programme and the 1995-99 special support programme for peace and reconciliation will begin before the end of the current financial year. These will aim to assess all programme impacts including peace and reconciliation.

Mr Paul Berry: Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to ensure that there is an equal distribution of the EU structural funds, given that the Unionist community has been overlooked for many years? I appreciate the Minister’s reply to my Colleague MrPoots that equality and balance are the key issues. I agree 100%, and I trust that he will do everything in his power to address the issue of the Unionist community’s being overlooked in the distribution of funds.

Mr Mark Durkan: While appreciating the Member’s point, I stress again that we need to be careful about making sweeping assumptions about the balance of allocation with regard to some of these programme funds.
With regard to the Unionist community’s being overlooked, the interim report of 1997 from the three MEPs, including IanPaisley, stated that there was no question of discrimination. While it noted that there appeared to be a lower rate of applications from communities in Protestant areas, that, in itself, did not imply any discrimination. That exercise, and other efforts, recognised the need to try to improve the situation and particularly to mitigate some of the legitimate concerns that were being expressed at that time. That work continues.
We need to remember that many of these measures have to work according to particular criteria. Targeting social need and deprivation factors can be relevant. Targeting social need considerations will not necessarily be synonymous with some people’s interpretation of what an equality consideration may mean.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am sure that the Minister is glad to be answering a question on funds other than Peace II. Will he confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the outlay of future funds with regard to Peace II, the transitional funds and the peace and reconciliation criteria to ensure that more jobs are created in areas which have genuine economic competitiveness to underlie them?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Peace programme, important and valuable though it is on the basis that it is additional money, is one part of the community support framework. The other larger part of the community support framework is the programme for building sustainable prosperity. A number of important principles have to inform the allocations and planning in respect of that programme. Not least of these is sustainability with regard to any project or measure. Longer-term sustainability with regard to underpinning longer-term economic development and supporting continuing prosperity is also important.
We need to ensure that we are making very clear, hard-headed decisions. This is not additional money, and many people seem to be under the illusion that it is. Since it is not additional money, it cannot be used, as some people seem to be suggesting, as a runner-up fund for projects that do not quite come through in relation to the Peace programme.
Clearly, the competition is going to be intense. We have to remember that the distinctiveness of the two programmes is important, and that is often emphasised to me by people who are very concerned to see that the integrity of the Peace programme is respected. That also applies in relation to the integrity of the programme for building sustainable prosperity.

Rates Arrears

Mr Seamus Close: 9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give his assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken by his Department to reduce the level of rates arrears.
(AQO 1276/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: The level of rate arrears expressed as a percentage of the gross collectable rate for each rate year has fallen from 3·8% in 1985-86 to 1·86% in 1999-2000. The lowest level of rate arrears was 1·72% in 1997-98. The Rate Collection Agency has consistently secured an arrears level of less than 2% over the last five years. The performance compares favourably with that delivered by similar public sector revenue collection organisations in other jurisdictions.

Assembly Standing Orders

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to explain how I propose to conduct the debate. As the next four motions relate to Standing Orders I propose to conduct only one debate. After the debate I will ask the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move each motion, and I will put the question with regard to each motion without further debate.
As with all motions on Standing Orders, the question can be resolved only on a cross-community basis. However, where there are voices from all sides of the Chamber for the motion and none to the contrary, I regard a division as unnecessary. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That Standing Order 10(2), line 3, be suspended until the Summer Recess.
The following motions stood on the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 15(1) line 2 and line 3 delete "at least one hour prior to the comomencement of business" and insert "not later than 9.30 am".
[Mr C Murphy]
In Standing Order 20(1) line 7 after "concerned" insert "normally".
[Mr C Murphy]
In Standing Order 10(2)(c) line 2 after "shall" insert "normally".
[Mr C Murphy]
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion to suspend Standing Order 10(2) line 3 is the result of discussion over a number of months following a request from some parties. Standing Orders provide time slots for many things but not for party business. The larger parties have more difficulty in this regard. There are no provisions for fixed time allowing parties to debate plenary matters or those generally pertaining to the Assembly.
The Committee on Procedures was asked to include this as part of an overall investigation into procedures in the House. Research has identified that, from the start of the current session, the average period for lunch on Mondays has been one hour and 45 minutes and the plenary sessions have generally lasted less than six hours. On numerous occasions the Assembly has adjourned much earlier than 6.00 pm.
Plenary sessions start at 10.30 am, and it is not possible to arrange party meetings during the lunch period, given that we do not know how long it will last. We considered a number of options for a later starting time for plenary sessions.
Under Standing Orders, the current starting time for plenary sessions is 10.30 am. Suggested options included a mid-afternoon start, finishing much later in the evening. However, after detailed consideration and taking on board the need to strike a balance with family-friendly policies which underscored the initial Standing Orders laid down for the Assembly, the Committee agreed that a starting time of 12 noon, finishing at 6.00 pm, should be introduced on a trial basis from now until the summer recess.
The removal of the lunch period will provide the Assembly with the same amount of time to consider business as before — roughly six hours. The Committee agreed that the new starting time would be an experiment until the summer recess and that it would then review the matter. For that reason, in this motion we are seeking a suspension of Standing Order 10, rather than proposing a new Standing Order. If, as we approach the summer recess, a review identifies that the later start time of 12 noon has been beneficial, the Committee will then undertake to table a motion at the start of the next session to make the change permanent. I beg to move the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker, do you want me to speak to the rest of the motions now, or do you wish them to be read first?

Ms Jane Morrice: We are having only one debate on all four motions, so could the mover of the motions please speak to all four in his initial statement?

Mr Conor Murphy: I was aware that all four motions had not been read; only one had been read. Do you wish to have the other motions read first, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Ms Jane Morrice: Please speak to all four motions.

Mr Conor Murphy: The second motion proposes a change to Standing Order 15 in relation to amendments. The current practice is that amendments have to be submitted in writing to the Speaker at least one hour prior to business commencing, which is normally 9.30 am on Monday and Tuesday mornings. This amendment seeks to ensure that where plenary sittings start at 12 noon, then further time is available to consider any amendments tabled by 9.30 am. Presently parties have only 60 minutes to consider amendments to business on the Order Paper, and this time is reduced by virtue of the fact that the amendments must be submitted to the Speaker who, within that time frame, considers if the amendment is competent. We propose that the time for submitting amendments be kept at 9.30 am on a Monday morning, rather than one hour before business commences.
The other two motions are connected and seek to amend the Standing Orders to deal with the issue of private notice questions. According to the present Standing Orders, a private notice question may be asked immediately prior to the start of the afternoon’s Adjournment debate. There is no flexibility for a private notice question to be taken at any other time, and if a Minister were not available, then the question would fall, and the opportunity for a Member to hear a ministerial response on a matter of public importance would be lost.
There is a precedent in this matter involving the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. With the indulgence of the Speaker, a very important question was allowed to be taken earlier in the day so that the Minister could be present to answer it. Had the period just preceding the Adjournment debate been rigidly stuck to, the Minister would have been out of the country and the question would not have been answered.
These two proposed changes to the Standing Orders are to allow a degree of flexibility as to when the Speaker may take a private notice question, in light of ministerial availability, to ensure that important issues are addressed.
I beg to move the motions.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Duncan Dalton: I support the motions put forward by the Chairman of the Committee. These motions deal with minor changes that the Committee believes will be of benefit to the operation of the Assembly.
I will work in reverse order and deal with the motions relating to private notice questions. The Committee Chairman mentioned the private notice question to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. From that past experience we have seen that had flexibility not been exercised by the Speaker to take the question at that point — although contrary to the Standing Orders as currently drafted — we would have lost an important private notice question. It was the Committee’s view that it would be foolish not to allow such questions to go forward simply because a Minister was unable to attend. By allowing a degree of flexibility and discretion, a Minister will be able to fit these into his or her timetable and ensure that private notice questions can be properly raised. This will be of benefit to the entire Assembly. Those are my reasons for supporting those secondary motions.
On the biggest change — the suspension of the timings — there was, again, a lengthy discussion in the Committee. A number of parties have indicated that the 10.30 am start time on a Monday is awkward — especially for the larger parties. They have a considerable logistical problem in properly discussing, debating and deciding how they are going to react to the day’s business. By allowing extra time, the larger parties, in particular, will be able to facilitate that. It will benefit the Assembly as a whole and especially those Members who are travelling from the west of the Province first thing on a Monday morning. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable for the House to indulge those who have to travel getting on for 100 miles from Castlederg. I am looking for my Colleague Mr Hussey, but I see that he is not here. The extra time would be useful as well. That would be my main reason for supporting that proposal.
The Committee discussed the idea of extending our time into the evenings as well. It was decided that that would not be appropriate, in the light of the family-friendly policy that was adopted by the Standing Orders Committee. We are putting forward a motion to suspend the Standing Order for this period, but we do so simply in order that we can sit from 12 noon until 6.00 pm. The Assembly will not lose any time, because there will not be a lunch break. The sitting time available will be the same as that previously available.
The change will have no impact on family-friendly hours, so that policy, which was agreed by the Assembly, will be maintained. I say that particularly to those Members who are concerned that the motion would take away the pleasurable time that they might spend with their families —or not, if that is their preference.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I have no difficulty with the proposals on private notice questions. They are sensible suggestions, and they provide a degree of flexibility. The Speaker has already exercised such flexibility, despite the current wording of the Standing Orders but with the agreement of the Business Committee.
There is a problem, however, with the first motion, which provides that the Assembly will not sit until noon on Mondays. Although it is only a suspension and an experiment, such things have a habit of becoming permanent. We are being asked to accept a proposal that will allow for debate to be foreshortened on Mondays. At the moment, we can have seven and a half hours for debate in the House — from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm — if required. There have been occasions on which the Business Committee has timetabled debates and motions that have carried on right through lunchtime. That has happened on a number of occasions on which it has been deemed to be necessary; on other occasions, there has been a lunch break. There is also a facility in the Standing Orders to extend time beyond 6.00 pm.
Judging from what the Deputy Chairman of the Committee said about the thinking behind the motion, it is clear that the Committee’s desire to keep family-friendly hours — stopping at 6.00 pm — will ensure that there will be less time available for the Business Committee to play with when agreeing business for Mondays. That does not reflect well on the Assembly.
Just over a week ago, we debated an issue that necessitated the recall of the Assembly. Many Members said then that there were many important social, economic and other issues that had to be debated in the House. Today, we have a suggestion from the Procedures Committee that we should reduce the time available for plenary sittings. Sometimes, we are in danger of forgetting about the views of the people who pay our salaries and who elect us to this place. They expect that, rather than devoting less time to discussion of matters of public interest, we should perhaps devote more time to it.
Members spend time in Committees and in their constituencies carrying out very important duties, but it does not reflect well on the Assembly to suggest, at this stage, that we should reduce the potential time for debate on the Floor of the Assembly.
I suspect that the real motive behind the proposal is that some parties are unable to get their act together sufficiently for a 10.30 am start. That may apply to one or more of the bigger parties whose Members have already spoken in the debate — it certainly does not apply to us.
It is amazing that those who are arguing for a lie-in on a Monday morning, and who have already spoken, say that there is a logistical problem and that they need extra time. If Members have not been organised to speak and amendments have not been thought about from 9.30 am, when they are submitted, it is unlikely that much extra work will be done between 10.30 am and noon.
Some Members, particularly those from west of the Bann, travel very long distances to be in the Assembly. However, to be fair, some of those who travel long distances are often in the Assembly before those who travel from considerably nearer places.
During the very bad weather, when the Assembly was very reduced in numbers, it was the Members from west of the Bann and from very far afield who made it here, struggling through very adverse conditions to their credit. If travelling long distances were really an argument for a later starting time, why are we leaving Tuesdays as they are? Surely the Committee should be suggesting that proceedings on Tuesdays should also start later? The argument does not stand up.

Mr Alan McFarland: If the Member accepts family-friendly hours, that the time available from noon to 6.00 pm is the same as that available at the moment, given the lunch hour, and that we have the ability to extend past 6.00 pm if required, would he clarify his objection to the new hours?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am happy to do so. The Member is clearly labouring under a grave misapprehension. I have not accepted some of the things that he mentioned. I have not accepted that we will have the same hours under the proposal as we do at present.
At the moment, the Business Committee has seven- and-a-half hours to play with, with the potential for extending beyond 6.00 pm if it wishes. Under the proposal to start at noon, according to the Deputy Chairperson, the Business Committee will have only six hours — so it is actually a reduction.
I do not accept that the number of hours will be the same. They would be the same if there were always a lunch break, but there have been occasions — and we are meeting on three days this week — when the Business Committee and the parties have agreed that we should continue through lunch.
Sometimes we have not had to continue through lunch because debates have not gone on as long as they were expected to. However, we are reducing the number of hours that the Business Committee has to play with on Mondays from seven-and-a-half hours to six hours. That is the situation, and I hope that the Member accepts it.
The Member also raised the issue of family-friendly hours. I did not make any comment about my views on the Assembly’s stopping at 6.00 pm — the reference to family-friendly hours came from the Deputy Chairperson. Indeed, other Members have referred to that on previous occasions.
We should try to conclude our business in and around six o’clock whenever possible. I am not against extending that timescale if the business merits that. There are occasions on which I have supported an extension, in the face of opposition from others, because I believed that the subject under discussion merited it. Therefore I am not against an extension on all occasions. However, the proposal not to start the business until 12 noon will make it potentially more difficult to stick to the 6.00 pm deadline.
Those are some of the reasons why I will oppose the removal of the requirement to start Assembly proceedings at 10.30 am on Mondays.

Mr Alban Maginness: I support the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures who have presented the arguments fairly and properly to the House. I do not understand the argument objecting to the temporary suspension of the Standing Orders that Mr Dodds has put forward. The temporary suspension is merely to see how things will pan out. It will show whether starting at 12 noon and moving on to 6.00 pm suits the House in the efficient dispatch of its duties. It puzzles me why the Member is so strenuously opposed to the experiment. That is all that it is — an experiment. If the suspension fails, and we discover that by moving the times we are, in fact, losing valuable time for debate and discussion, we can revert to the present position after the summer recess. We will have lost nothing. Therefore I do not know why the Member is so perturbed about the matter.
There is a fair argument that the parties in the House do need time to reflect on Monday mornings on the business for the week — not just the business of the House, but the business in Committees and so forth. There is a great deal going on; parties must inform one and other about what is happening in the various Committees. On Monday mornings it is important they have time to get to grips with the business, and starting at 12 noon seems to be a sensible thing to do. I cannot see how anybody could have any great objection to the experiment. I hope that the House can support the suspension. It will be an interesting experiment, and if, in fact, it does turn out to be a bad one, we can learn a lesson from it.

Mr Sean Neeson: I am delighted to hear the optimism from all around the House that the Assembly will go on beyond the summer recess.
It is right and proper that we review Standing Orders from occasion to occasion. While I largely accept most of the proposals that are being put forward today by the Chairperson and his Committee, I have serious reservations about the first proposal. The Business Committee normally meets on a Tuesday, and, to a large extent, the business for the following week and weeks beyond is decided at that meeting. Therefore it provides opportunities, between Tuesday and Friday, for parties to meet and work out who will deal with the various business issues for the following week. My party meets at lunchtime on Thursday.
I accept the Chairperson’s words when he says that it is still the Committee’s intention to preserve the family-friendly hours. However, my fear is that we will reach the stage, maybe on a Tuesday, where we do not get the business completed, and that will necessitate special meetings of the Assembly on a Wednesday.
The Assembly has been functioning very well for a year, and it is clear that the amount of legislative business coming through the various Committees is increasing. I have serious reservations about whether we will be able to get through all of that business.
Subject to the approval of the Business Committee tomorrow, we will be meeting next Wednesday to discuss the item that we were supposed to be dealing with this Wednesday. That shows that business is building up and that the Assembly is functioning well. I echo what Mr Dodds said — once something becomes temporary, it can well become permanent. We must remember that Members also face other pressures.
For example, many of us are members of councils, and every Monday evening many of us have council meetings to attend as well. In the circumstances, my party and I find it difficult to accept the first proposal and urge the Chairman and his Committee to rethink the matter.
Preserving family-friendly hours may seem like a worthwhile gesture to those who do have concerns. However, there is plenty of time to deal with the issues, through you, Mr Speaker, between Tuesday and Friday. We oppose the first motion.

Mr Roy Beggs: I would like to concentrate on how amendments are dealt with when put forward on a Monday morning. The deadline for amendments is 9.30 am. They are to be submitted to the Speaker’s Office by that time. They have to be marshalled, and the Speaker must determine which amendments are to be listed on that day’s Order Paper. Assembly Members are frequently notified of the Marshalled List at 10.00 am or, on occasion, before 10.30 am. I consider it inappropriate that Members are given only thirty minutes’ notice, or sometimes no notice at all, of the Marshalled List of amendments before entering the Chamber.
That occurs through no fault of the Speaker, but rather through the fault of the procedures that are in place. I favour a trial period purely because it will provide an opportunity for amendments to be properly discussed in each group before a decision is made. It is inappropriate that amendments are presented to Members without proper time for discussion and debate in each of the groups before they enter the Chamber. Some parties may not have the same level of discussion.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I agree with the thrust of his remarks about the time available for the notification of amendments. The Assembly should address that issue. However, given the point that he makes — and I am sure that this will resonate throughout the House — I fail to understand why we are leaving matters as they are on a Tuesday. We now have separate Order Papers for Mondays and Tuesdays, so we will be in exactly the same position on Tuesdays as we are on Mondays, whereby amendments can be tabled up until 9.30 am, and Members can be given as little as 30 minutes’ notice, or sometimes no notice at all. I agree with the point, but I wonder why is it a good idea for a Monday but not for a Tuesday.

Mr Roy Beggs: I agree with that point and would have supported a proposal to apply the proposed changes to Tuesday’s sittings also. That argument works in favour of having a trial period during which we would be able to see whether there were any benefits from applying the arrangements for Mondays’ sittings to Tuesdays’. There would be a two-month period during which the arrangements will apply on one of the Assembly’s two plenary days, with an opportunity to compare how business is conducted on the different days.
Some parties may not have the same level of internal discussion and debate as others. In my party, it is difficult for everyone to make himself available at a fixed time, given the fact that there is a party Member on every Assembly Committee. It would be difficult not to eat into time during which Members should be at a Committee. I value the democratic nature of my party, and, as an ordinary Back-Bencher, I value the opportunity to discuss every issue and to have an input on the resultant party line. I strongly support the proposal.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I am sometimes amazed by statements that I hear in the House. I thought that it was the role of the Business Committee to make businesslike proposals. I thought that those, in particular, who are so adamant that this place should work, would demonstrate a businesslike administration of their work. However, they are really admitting to the parties’ inability to organise themselves — that is the nub of this whole argument.
The only real argument that emerged — that which took place between Mr Beggs and MrDodds — concerned the question of how much time the parties should have to consider amendments. The Committee should go back to this question and have an honest discussion about it. There is concern that at 9.30 am the Speaker has to make a judgement and may have to assess not just one contentious amendment, but possibly three or four. Having made his decision, he has to publish it to the various parties. I can see that this creates some logistical problems.
I want to make a further point concerning logistics. Every Member from west of the Bann, apart from Mr Byrne and me, has disappeared — and quite rightly so, given that they have work to do in other areas. If a sitting begins at midday and ends at 6.00 pm, some of us, because of traffic congestion, will not arrive home until 8.00 pm or later, and bear in mind that in a rural constituency, if a Member wants to do worthwhile work, he has to travel a further 30 or 40 miles. Given the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, how many of us want to drive on to farmyards and run the risk of contamination?
The one sensible thing that Mr Alban Maginness said was that time is important. I would have no objection if a sitting started at 9.30 am and finished at 5.30 pm. Those of us who have to spend time travelling would have more time to carry out constituency work when we returned home. There are constituency offices to run. Some parties cannot manage their affairs, so they are calling upon the Assembly to accommodate their inability to be businesslike. That is not a reasonable argument for the rest of us to accept.
I start quite early in the morning, and although I do not claim that everyone else should do the same, we have taken on the task of representation. We have, therefore, a duty of care to be businesslike and to demonstrate that responsibility not just in the Assembly, but in our constituency efforts. While I am sure Mr Dalton would say that he has a right to family-friendly affairs, I need to be convinced of it. Others among us have family commitments. Some travel from as far as Garrison and Castlederg, and the rest of us must travel considerable distances. This is a design some people have dreamt up because they could not handle their own business.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Speaker: The Member has now taken his seat.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome these amendments to the Standing Orders, such as they are. Both the Business Committee and the Procedures Committee have a great deal more work to do if we are to run our affairs to optimum effect. A number of remarks are pertinent to the proposals put forward today.
In the past, and sometimes in a slightly different context, we have debated one or two of these matters. I have never subscribed to the view that family-friendly hours should be a particular consideration when deciding how to run our affairs. On the whole, politics is not a particularly family-friendly occupation. I speak as one with a very young new member of my family, so I have some sort of position on that at home as well as here.
However, none of the proposals that I have heard suggests that we lock everybody up in here until about 10.00 pm every night of the week. For the most part, proposals surround the idea of one late sitting a week, and for the time being, at least, that is not the proposal that we hope to run with. The business of the Assembly would be far better conducted if we sat into the evening on the first day, which currently is a Monday, and Members were not inclined to travel a distance to their homes that night. It would be normal practice to stay overnight in the vicinity of the Assembly.
That is a fairly normal practice in most legislatures of countries of any size. In Scotland, which is somewhat bigger than Northern Ireland and has a population of about five million, they manage to conduct their plenary affairs in a day and a half. They conduct their Committee affairs in a further day and a half. They assume that Members will spend two nights staying in the environs of the Scottish Parliament, enabling them to put in three very full days of work.
This has a bearing on the remarks that Mr Gibson has just made about attending to constituency affairs. It seems to me that that is the way to do it as that allows the maximum amount of time in one place and then the maximum amount of time in the other. If you are running your time efficiently, you should not spend too much time running between the two. I have a journey of slightly over an hour, provided I travel outside rush hour to get here. We have not yet fully probed all angles about the times during which we should have plenary meetings.
From time to time, I hear it remarked that many Members sit on councils and have to attend to council business on Monday evening. This is of no concern to the Assembly. We have Members who do two, three and four different jobs, all of them in a pretty patchy manner as far as I can judge. If a Member chooses to try to do two jobs at once, that is his affair. It is not the affair of the Assembly.
We could have addressed a number of other matters when reviewing our Standing Orders that might have tidied things up — such as the banning of Members from reading pre-scripted speeches. That might have made things a little more succinct. We would have a perfectly ample amount of time available if the Business Committee were more selective and critical in its choice of motions, particularly those to be taken on Tuesdays. If we did not devote time to discussing matters well beyond the jurisdiction of the Assembly, we would save a great deal of time. We have some way to go before we can claim that we are operating in the most sensible and efficient manner.
Finally, I entirely support Mr Murphy’s proposal that amendments should still be tabled by 9.30 am for a 12 noon start. The matter of amendments to motions for debate on Tuesdays was raised in debate. It seems to me that if we start at 10.30 am on Tuesday, then logically we should seek to have amendments tabled by 6.00 pm on Monday, so as to allow a similar amount of time for the amendments to be dealt with.
If more time were available, these matters would be better dealt with and debated. There is an inappropriate obsession that the Assembly is more macho the longer it sits and that it does greater good the longer it sits. I contend that the reality is the opposite. The excessive amount of time spent in plenary in this Assembly reduces the amount of time available for proper consideration of issues, and it reduces the time available for Members to be properly informed.
Consequently we have a great deal of debate that seems to be poorly informed. While the point I am about to make is more a matter for the Business Committee, I think it is worth making: I calculated that this Assembly will, if it gets to the end of this term, have sat for 37 weeks over the three terms of the year. That is totally illogical. It takes four weeks to do a cycle of ministerial questions. Logically, the number of weeks that the Assembly sits in plenary for a year should be a number divisible by four — 32 or 36.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has digressed well outside this debate and the Standing Orders that are under consideration. We must be reasonably efficient about our time.

Mr James Leslie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am actually speaking in parenthesis on the point about the amount of time spent in plenary. That time is both the time in hours on Monday and Tuesday and the time in hours over the year as a whole. Therefore, the point that I have just made is relevant. I do not think that there are very many legislators that have 37 weeks of plenary. Perhaps we will return to that matter on another date.
My final point relates to the starting of our business. Showing flexibility in working hours, enabling at least some of the population to travel to work outside the rush hour, can only be a good thing. However, there are other Members — perhaps like myself — for whom I do not anticipate any change in the time that they start work on a Monday. I start at around a quarter to nine. The work that I normally do on a Sunday, I might now be able to do on a Monday.
I support all the motions.

Mr Joe Byrne: I support the motions. The first motion is causing the greatest debate. As someone who travels 75 miles on Monday mornings, I think that it is important that there be a discussion within party groups about the order of business for the week. It is unfair to the business of the House if there is inadequate discussion within groups at the start of the week on the order of business.
Currently we have about one hour and forty-five minutes for lunch on a Monday. This motion, under which we would be starting official Assembly business at 12 noon, means that we would be losing under half an hour of actual Assembly time. In order to make sure that all our Colleagues in all the groups are fully apprised of what is going on in the Assembly formally and what is going on in the Committees, it makes sense to have proper discussion in our groups.
It is also important that the Whips have a clear understanding of what is happening so that we have an efficient method of voting on our motions. That would enable smooth functioning and running of Assembly business.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and those who indicated their support for the amendments we are proposing. The most significant amendment is the first one concerning changing plenary times. It was interesting to hear some of Mr Dodds’s arguments opposing the change of time for starting plenary sessions. It would have been helpful to hear those arguments in Committee. Mr Dodds is a member of the Procedures Committee, as is Mr Paisley Jnr, but they chose not to attend any Committee meetings except when the Committee visited Edinburgh, when we were travelling abroad — [Interruption].

A Member: Scotland is not abroad.

Mr Conor Murphy: It is under a foreign country.
Mr R Hutchinson did turn up, and his only contribution to the debate was to tell us that the DUP would be opposing it. Many of the points raised by Mr Dodds were debated and argued at length in the Committee. Had he been there to give his viewpoint, perhaps we could have answered some of the questions he has raised.
On the question of permanence, as Alban Maginness stated in his contribution, this will become permanent only if it proves to be beneficial to the Assembly. It is experimental. We cannot get away from the fact that Mr Dodds says that there will be a reduction in time. The Committee undertook a survey which showed that since the start of this session the average time taken for lunch has been one hour and 45 minutes — wasted time, in effect. The larger parties cannot plan for that because you cannot legislate for when that may happen.
As for the reduction in time and the amount of hours the Business Committee has to play with, if Mr Dodds had bothered to turn up for Committee meetings, he would have known that we are proposing a suspension of that Standing Order, which means that the Business Committee can decide the time. We are not asking the Assembly to adopt a Standing Order that says we start at 12 noon on a Monday. We are, in fact, proposing the suspension of the Standing Order that dictates that we start at 10.30 am on a Monday. If the Business Committee feels that the business merits it, it can decide to start earlier than 12 noon. Our recommendation to the Business Committee is that we try an experimental start time of 12 noon. That is not in the proposal, and it is up to the Business Committee to decide — [Interruption].
Again I make the point that if the Member or his Colleague had bothered to turn up —

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member keeps referring to the "bottle" to turn up. I am here today to make points in this debate. Rather than engage in insidious sniping and personal remarks, the Chairperson should answer the arguments in detail, as I did.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I engaged in the argument.

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I remind the Member that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The Member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order, as he knows.

Mr Jim Shannon: It was a good point, and it was very eloquent.

Mr Speaker: It may be a point, but it is not a point of order.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. If Mr Dodds had been listening, he would know that I did not say he did not have the "bottle" to turn up; I said he did not "bother" to turn up to meetings. I will make the point again. It is all very well and good making arguments now. However, when a Committee spends months thrashing something out, and Committee members do not bother to take part in that debate, it is somewhat invidious of them to turn up and make their points here.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee did not spend months debating this issue.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure what the intended point of order is.

Mr Conor Murphy: That is an indication of the level of contribution from Mr Hutchinson to the Committee debate.
I return to the purpose behind this motion. There were some suggestions, attempts at media sound bites, that this was to give Members a lie-in on a Monday morning. That is clearly not the case. Members, especially those from the larger parties, will start work at the same time on a Monday morning, which is the intention of those from the larger parties who support this motion. Rather than coming straight into the plenary session or, as stated by Roy Beggs Jnr, spending less than half an hour dealing with any amendments, they will have two hours to debate among themselves, which is what democratic parties usually do. The DUP has a different approach, which is somewhat ironic considering its party name. That is what democratic parties do; they not only debate the order of the business for plenary days but also Committee business and general political business in the Assembly.
Almost all other items of business in the Assembly have an allocated time slot, apart from party business. There was clearly a deficit in that parties were struggling to find time to meet.
Travel is not the main consideration — it is obviously one consideration, but it is certainly not the main one. The intention of the parties who proposed the motion — from discussion at the Committee — was that they would start their own party business at 9.30 am to 10.00 am on a Monday morning rather than come into the Chamber. That would provide them with time, rather than having a rushed approach, given that the plenary session starts at 10.30 am and that amendments are not available to the parties until perhaps 10.00 am.
Sean Neeson made several points — and I accept that his party is not represented on the Committee because of the way the membership fell. The Business Committee, by and large, agrees the content of the Order Paper on a Tuesday afternoon. However, the Order Paper is not finalised — as the Speaker knows, and as Mr Neeson and his party Whip will know — until Thursday afternoon. Therefore, the full and final content of the Order Paper is not available to the parties until Thursday afternoon when the Speaker has signed it off.
As regards having party meetings on Thursdays, two Committees meet on a Thursday afternoon, and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee meets on a Friday morning. Most Members attempt to give Fridays over to constituency business and will operate out of their constituency offices. Therefore, for any of the four largest parties, any party meetings called on Thursday afternoons or on Fridays are likely to have up to five members missing due to there being a clash with Committee meetings. This proposal is an attempt to find a slot for the parties to meet when all party members should be available because there is no other Assembly business to keep them from meeting with their party Colleagues.
As regards the Member’s worry about the proposal on extending beyond 6.00 pm, I remind him that we are not making such a proposal. The Assembly already has that facility, although it has been very rarely used. We discussed the matter in depth, and we are making no proposal to extend beyond 6.00 pm in this experimental change to Standing Orders.
I agree with Roy Beggs that the current procedures provide too little time. Nigel Dodds reinforced that point when he mentioned the Tuesday morning set-up, and other Members also made the point. The Committee must address the issue, and Members, including Mr Dodds, are correct in saying that 30 to 45 minutes is not sufficient time for people to consider fully the implications of an amendment. It is not enough time for a large party of 18, 20, 24 or 28 members to decide how they will vote on an issue and have a proper democratic discussion on it. Clearly, there is a case for a review of the Tuesday deadline. James Leslie suggested a Monday evening 6.00 pm deadline for amendments, and that is something that the Committee is going to have to consider again.
I remind Oliver Gibson that it is the Procedures Committee that are making these proposals, not the Business Committee. The Business Committee can be businesslike, but I do not know if we can be "procedures- like". The matter of amendments is one that we are going to have to keep under review. It has been raised here, and the Committee will want to pay attention to it.
I agree with the point about family-friendly hours. On many occasions when I have debated this issue with people, I have said that family-friendly hours do not apply to those who live in places such as Fermanagh, West Tyrone or Derry — by the time they get home, they will have travelled for maybe two to two-and-a-half hours. Family-friendly hours do not have much value then.
We must also consider that family-friendly hours do not apply to Members only; they apply to the Assembly staff who are obliged to stay on. That was one aspect considered by the Committee. Assembly staff are obliged to stay for at least an hour after the Plenary session is finished. That was one of the arguments against extending into the evening.
I do not agree with James Leslie’s point about overnight stays. I would prefer to go home. However, any matters may be tabled for discussion by the Committee, and if Mr Leslie, through his party representatives on the Committee, wants to table that suggestion, I am sure that it will be discussed.
I hope that I have answered most of the points made. I regret that, at Committee stage, we did not have the opportunity to debate some of the points raised with the Members who made them today. However, it is their preference to choose whether to attend Committee meetings.
Question put.
The Assembly divided (cross-community vote): Ayes 41; Noes 22
Ayes
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Unionist
Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells.
Other
Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.
Total Votes 63 Total Ayes 41 (65.1%) Nationalist Votes 23 Nationalist Ayes 23 (100.0%) Unionist Votes 36 Unionist Ayes 18 (50.0%)
Resolved:
That Standing Order 10(2) line 3 be suspended until the Summer Recess.
Resolved:
In Standing Order 15(1) line 2 and line 3 delete "at least one hour prior to the commencement of business" and insert "not later than 9.30 am".
Resolved:
In Standing Order 20(1) line 7 after "concerned" insert "normally".
Resolved:
In Standing Order 10(2)(c) line 2 after "shall" insert "normally".

Traffic-Calming Measures in West Belfast

Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn — [Mr Speaker]

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. Obviously the Adjournment motion —[Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members are depriving themselves of the debate on traffic-calming measures in west Belfast, perhaps they would do so quietly. Please continue, Mr Maskey.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, is it not unusual for the Minister not to be in the House? He has, in fact, just vacated the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: It is unusual, but it appears that the Minister is seeking some sustenance for the verbal journey ahead. Please continue.

Mr Alex Maskey: The motion relates to traffic-calming measures in west Belfast. However, I want to talk about traffic conditions and, to a lesser extent, car crime in the area, and how traffic-calming measures can impact on that in a positive way.
I welcome the fact that traffic-calming measures have been introduced in a number of estates and roads in the area over the last few years. I also welcome the fact that officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development have been involved in discussions with several local schools, together with the West Belfast Partnership Board. However, those discussions were designed as a pilot survey of road traffic and safety issues around some schools only. There is a clear need to complete that survey.
West Belfast is an area defined as suffering from serious social disadvantage, and there is already clear evidence that there are more accidents, road deaths and injuries in such built-up areas. Therefore, I argue that west Belfast should be accepted as an area that requires further extensive action on traffic calming.
The Department constantly tells us that there are established published criteria for the provision of traffic- calming measures. However, it is my experience — and I argue that it is also the experience of many others — that unless there is community and political pressure the Department will rarely act voluntarily to provide such measures in an area. Consequently, these measures are provided in a piecemeal manner and only after long local campaigning.
I understand that traffic-calming measures in themselves do not solve all the issues of traffic management or anti-social behaviour. However, there is evidence to back up the fact that they can help. A variety of measures can be introduced, such as ramps, road narrowing, traffic lights, or crossing islands, which do not always require a huge amount of money.
Given the identified traffic problems in west Belfast such as on the Westlink, Falls Road, Andersonstown Road, Blacks Road and others, most estates are used as rat runs for drivers seeking to avoid the congestion on the main roads. It is welcome that under new planning regulations housing developments will incorporate traffic-calming measures, but this will not affect existing developments or roads in the area.
I refer the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Campbell, to his response to my question on 5February. He said that his Department remained keen to investigate properly any problems raised by assessing what contribution safety engineering might make to difficulties in any area. Clearly this assertion totally contradicts the response that I received from his Department three weeks later, on 28 February, in relation to the specific question of the Monagh bypass. I use this example to illustrate the difficulty.
The acting chief executive, MrFraser, informed me that a meeting to discuss the Monagh bypass would not be of any benefit in tackling the traffic problems and anti-social activity, which continue to bedevil the residents in that area. That response from a civil servant is unacceptable, and I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why his official refused a meeting with a local elected representative.
Over the last few weeks the Monagh bypass has featured quite extensively in the local press due to car crime. Physical measures can and must be introduced on this road, as they have been on others, to discourage speeding and car crime and so ensure the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.
On 7 February, the Minister advised me in a written response that resources had not yet been allocated for the year 2001-02 and that Members would be informed when the allocation had been finalised. At that time the Minister could not give any specific commitment to increased measures in any area. To date, I have heard nothing. I read with interest at the weekend that a councillor — in east Belfast, I believe — claimed that extra funding has been made available for the area. I am happy to hear that.
West Belfast, like many other areas, needs to have a planned programme of traffic-calming measures introduced. It needs to be done in a phased, planned way over a period rather than because of local pressure or accidents in the area.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that his Department will honour the commitment that he gave in the House on 5 February and will explore all options with respect to traffic-calming measures in order to alleviate the chronic traffic problems and car crime that exist in west Belfast. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Alex Attwood: I would like to approach this issue from three levels. First, there is traffic calming itself. Secondly, there is the issue of road strategy in west Belfast, and, thirdly, there is the issue of wider development in the city of Belfast and how it impacts upon west Belfast.
I agreed with Mr Maskey when he stated that there are published criteria in respect of traffic-calming measures. The Roads Service will state what those measures are when one writes to it. Will the Minister ask his officials to consider a review of the current criteria for the installation of traffic-calming measures? In the view of many people those criteria are not exhaustive; they are no longer as applicable as they might once have been, and they should be broadened.
If people write to Roads Service they will get a letter back confirming that the factors included in the assessment of road traffic-calming measures are: the accident history for the previous five years; the volume of cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs); the speed of traffic; the width of footpaths and the distance from street to house; the presence of a school or playground in or near the street; the presence of a hospital, clinic, home or suchlike in the street; and the presence of shops or public buildings in the street. These are valid criteria, but they need to be reviewed and broadened, because they do not take account of a number of significant traffic considerations. I will give a number of examples.
First, should the criteria not be broadened to include an assessment of the volume of traffic using roads adjoining those that are being considered for traffic- calming measures? You cannot consider the issue of traffic calming in one street without considering the traffic flow in adjoining streets, especially where those adjoining streets are arterial routes or primary routes going through parts of the city of Belfast, particularly west Belfast. I ask the Minister to consider whether the criteria should be revised to be more explicit or to expressly include that criterion.
Secondly, the current criteria correctly identify issues of traffic management and safety given the presence of a school or playground in or near the street. However, the criteria do not take into account the age profile of the people who might be living in that street. Although a school around the corner might have an impact on having a traffic-calming measure in a neighbouring street, it would not necessarily include consideration of traffic calming, given the age profile of that street, whether that profile is very elderly or very young — having a lot of older people or a lot of children. It would be appropriate and relevant for the criteria to be revised to take that factor into consideration.
The third issue that I want the Minister and his officials to consider the probable future use of roads in particular areas of west Belfast, the city in general and beyond. If there is going to be growth in traffic volume in west Belfast — and empirical evidence suggests that that is likely — then that is also an issue that should be considered when it comes to traffic-calming measures. If there is going to be a likely significant increase in traffic volume in parts of west Belfast because of developments in and around the area that I will detail shortly, that should be factored into the determination of traffic- calming measures.
I want to broaden the discussion, because the revision of the criteria can apply to west Belfast and to other parts of the North, and so it should. However, there is an issue particular to west Belfast, and Alex Maskey referred to it. That is the disproportionate number of accidents — fatal and non-fatal — in west Belfast relative to other comparable areas of the city and of the North in general. That is true not only in the case of road traffic accidents, but also in respect of other accidents.
One of the indicators of the quality of life in west Belfast is that there is a high accident rate. It is a high accident rate in terms of road use as well. Given that particular factor in the area, it seems appropriate that there should be a general review of road traffic-calming measures in west Belfast independent of the review of the specific criteria for traffic-calming measures because of the particularly high volume of accidents in that area. I ask the Minister and his officials to consider that.
The second point that I want to make, which I referred to in my opening comments, is about the probable increase in road use. If that is going to be a factor it should be the case that the Department, as a consequence, look at a far-sighted traffic-calming policy in areas that are going to be affected by the probable increase in traffic. That is particularly relevant to west Belfast. Over the next two, three and four years there is going to be a significant increase in traffic volume there arising from at least three or four developments.
First, the builders are currently on site at Springvale campus. The first new build of Springvale is under construction at the moment. In three years and three months time, there will be 3,000 people going onto that campus every single day — students, teaching staff and ancillary staff. It is quite clear that that is going to have a very significant impact on the area. The Department for Regional Development should be anticipating that and should anticipate, as a consequence, road traffic-calming measures in and around that area and in the other routes that lead to that area.
Secondly, there is likely to be the Westlink development. Among the road-use consequences of that development, Department officials refer, inter alia, to the fact that, given that there will be, for a time, less traffic able to use the Westlink, they anticipate that some of that traffic will go into the adjoining areas — one of which is west Belfast.
There is going to be a knock-on effect, if Westlink proceeds, on traffic volume exiting from the M1, both at Lisburn and at Kennedy Way, going into west Belfast in order to avoid the backlogs that will arise further down the Westlink and into the city of Belfast.
Thirdly, there are some very large planning proposals in west Belfast, particularly at Lagmore. There is potentially one at St Patrick’s Training School and one off the Monagh Road. If they proceed, they will have enormous consequences for traffic volume in west Belfast.
Whether all of those do or do not proceed, it is quite clear that over the next four years there will be significant increases in volume of traffic going into and coming out of west Belfast. The increase will be caused by traffic both indigenous to the constituency and traffic using the roads to avoid gridlock elsewhere.
As a consequence of that, the Department should be sponsoring a review of how that will impact in the area so that there are traffic-calming measures to mitigate some of the effects of those developments. In that regard I agree with Alex Maskey. The Department for Regional Development says that such developments as I have outlined are developer-led and that it is for the developer to come up with road traffic management proposals. That is valid, but it is not enough.
It should also be for the Department to anticipate where the difficulties are going to be and to plan for those difficulties. That includes sponsoring a traffic-calming survey in those areas of particular need and particular growth over the next two and three years.
The final issue that I want to raise, moving beyond traffic calming and increased road use per se, concerns the wider development strategy. The Minister’s Department — and I know that the Minister is specifically considering this matter at the moment — is currently looking at a draft strategic framework for planning policy in the North.
One of the issues that the Minister, the Regional Development Committee and others are looking at is the issue of greenfield and brownfield development.
If the Minister and the Government go down the road of concentrating on greenfield development and disregarding or diminishing the role of brownfield development, they will create a situation with increased traffic coming into town and into areas such as west Belfast to avoid congestion elsewhere.
When the Minister looks at that issue, will he ensure that the greenfield/brownfield mix is consistent with other cities of the size of Belfast, given that the strategic proposal and policy are long term and the consequences that will come to the streets of west Belfast, other streets in Belfast and elsewhere if the policy is not right? I suggest that the mix should be 30% greenfield to 70% brownfield. The provision of 10% for over-zoning should not be granted to developers. The suggestion of greenfield villages on the outskirts of Belfast — of which there are 16 or 17 in the air at the moment — should not be approved. Brownfield should become a key element in strategic planning and development policy over the next 10 to 15 years.
It is a multidimensional approach that might incorporate those proposals so that the immediate and the longer-term problem of traffic calming and traffic safety in west Belfast and elsewhere can be properly addressed.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
I welcome the chance to speak on this issue. Traffic calming is a serious issue in our communities, faced by young people, the elderly and the disabled. It is also an issue in combating car crime. Sometimes it is the only thing preventing a life-threatening situation. The provision of traffic-calming measures in west Belfast as a whole has been poor, but some small measures have been provided lately. However, I am concerned that it is being done in a piecemeal fashion, rather than areas being looked at as a whole.
Mr Maskey and Mr Attwood listed the criteria that the Department uses to provide traffic-calming measures. The criteria are based on statistics such as the clustering of accidents at a certain spot and requests from residents.
A number of years ago I was involved — and I see some officials here who were involved at that time — with the local community from Twinbrook and Poleglass in response to the tragic deaths of a number of children from my own area. The residents, community groups and local political leaders were on board, and we consulted everybody from the residents to the business community to the local Housing Executive and the health centre to see what traffic-calming measures were needed.
The area included three estates with over 30,000 residents, and at that stage there were no traffic-calming measures in place. We produced a traffic-calming scheme document that we thought was relevant to that community, because it was what the community thought was necessary to have an impact and try to reduce the senseless deaths. At one time, six or seven kids were killed in a two-and- a-half-year period.
We realised, following consultation with officials from the Department, that because we were talking about a wide area the schemes could not be implemented right away. We took on board that finance was not available for the full scheme to be implemented. We accepted that the schemes must be phased. We were concerned that what the residents had asked for, because of the background work that they had done, was not going to be followed through. We had heated meetings with departmental officials on a number of occasions, because we felt that we were only getting tins of paint when we wanted roundabouts.
We did fulfil several of the Department’s criteria, and we were amazed to find that our fight was only beginning after we produced the traffic-calming scheme. We did not give up when we discovered that thousands of pounds had been spent on traffic-calming measures in south Belfast, even though the criteria had not been met. The residents there did not ask for the traffic-calming scheme. The Comptroller and Auditor General produced a report on traffic-calming measures, saying that the scheme was flawed and highlighting the inequalities in the Department’s criteria.
On a positive note, there has been some movement on introducing traffic-calming schemes in some areas. However, I am concerned that the Department is still not looking at entire areas and is just putting in traffic-calming measures for the sake of it, without considering the impact of such measures. There was reference earlier to new housing developments such as Lagmore. Regardless of whether those are public or private schemes, they should not proceed unless traffic-calming measures are included. There are over 10,000 people in a new housing estate in Lagmore, but the Department has not adapted the roads. There is no long-term strategy for traffic calming.
Alex Maskey spoke about the level of car crime faced by the community in west Belfast. Residents want traffic-calming measures, because they believe that such schemes will have an impact not only on daily car crime, but on speeding in the area. We should get rid of the Department’s criteria and have just one criterion — saving lives, not money. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Alan McFarland: We have heard much detail about west Belfast and the need for traffic calming there. However, this is a wider issue, which needs a broad strategy. The problem can be commuting rat runs, and Ms Ramsey has described how people drive through estates in order to take short cuts. More often, the basic problem is young men in small, fast cars; we are all familiar with that. It is not just a problem in west Belfast; it is a problem throughout the Province. The tyre marks caused by handbrake turns can be seen in any shopping centre and any other place that allows that sort of thing to happen. I was admiring some in Bangor shopping centre car park yesterday.
This is a social issue. The young men see it as a measure of their courage to drive cars quickly. It is a form of breast-beating; it is the "young-man-out-hunting" syndrome. It involves those who own small cars and those who steal cars, wiring them up and driving them away. Between Belfast and Bangor there are the "Wacky Races"; cars are stolen in various parts of Belfast, and there is then a competition to see how quickly the driver can get to Bangor and steal another car to get back. Some of the thieves end up in court, and the local paper covers such stories regularly. Others end up mashed into a wall around Holywood somewhere, and that is also a relatively frequent occurrence.
The aggressive use of cars is a symptom of a problem found in many areas — a complete lack of facilities. There is nothing for young people to do, so they take to cars. There is little co-ordination of youth provision, and there are few positive role models. In some areas of England efforts have been made to introduce young lads to rallying and stock car racing and teach them car mechanics. When I was that age, I was car mad, and I spent several years rallying and driving cars around in circles and overturning them. It is fairly normal behaviour, and it can be channelled. Unfortunately, in many cases, there is no place to channel it.
It is an increasing problem. Yes, traffic calming can have some impact locally, but I call on the Minister to get together with his Colleagues in social development, in health and in education to try to work out an overall strategy to deal with this problem.
If the question of young men and their cars and how we take that forward as a general social issue were dealt with, we might be able to ease up on what is undoubtedly a massive expense. If one area has it, then why can all areas not have it? I suspect that the Minister will tell us that there is not enough money to put it everywhere. We need to track it back in to the core problem, and, while traffic calming is important, we need a cross-departmental task force, perhaps, to examine the core issue.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I want to take the opportunity to outline the background to traffic calming as a concept, and what my Department has endeavoured to do in relation to it.
The objective of a traffic-calming scheme is to improve driver behaviour and to keep speed at a level in keeping with the surrounding urban street environment. Traffic calming can do a number of things such as reduce the number and severity of casualties resulting from road traffic accidents, discourage heavy vehicles and through traffic from using unsuitable routes, reduce speeding, improve the urban street environment and reduce community severance, promote a greater feeling of safety and promote cycling and walking.
West Belfast is included in the eastern division of my Department’s Roads Service. For information, I can advise the House that the eastern division alone receives approximately 200 requests for traffic calming each year. In fact, I am advised that there are 10 times more applications for traffic calming in Northern Ireland than there are resources to implement them.
In order to make a fair comparison between the various requests and to identify those sites where the greatest benefit may be achieved from traffic calming, primarily in terms of accident reduction, an assessment procedure has been devised that takes into account the following factors, to which some Members have referred: a five-year accident history, details of which are obtained though police records; vehicle speeds; volume of cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), calculated using detector equipment placed on the ground; environmental factors such as the width of footways and distance from the street to the house; the presence of schools or playgrounds in or near the streets; the presence of hospitals, clinics, homes or suchlike; and the presence of shops or public buildings.
Sites are assessed and points allocated under these headings, and a priority rating is assigned to each site. It is simply impossible to meet all of the many requests for traffic calming, given the limited funding that is available and the engineering staff resources that are needed for consultation on the various schemes. I have referred to this on various occasions in the House, and on Tuesday April 10 I was pleased to announce my traffic-calming initiative.
There are three key elements to the initiative, which I hope will go some way towards addressing these factors. The first is one that I hope the House will welcome. I have been able to announce a 30% increase in the funds available for traffic calming in the 2001-02 financial year. That is an increase of £400,000 from £1·4 million to £1·8 million.
The introduction of traffic-calming partnerships on a pilot basis is designed to give local communities more say in the development of schemes, which I hope will mean implementing schemes more quickly.
I am signally attracted to that particular element of the scheme, because I want to hear what local communities have to say is the best scheme for their area. Finally, a traffic-calming leaflet will be launched to inform communities of the criteria for traffic calming and the types of calming measures available.
I want to turn now to west Belfast in particular. A pilot scheme has been identified under my new initiative for Stewartstown Park, Stewartstown Avenue, Horn Drive and Falcarragh Park and will be implemented during the current financial year. The area was assessed using the standard criteria and had a high points score due to the number of accidents and the speed and volume of traffic in the area. The estimated cost of the scheme is £40,000.
Roads Service staff attend the Lenadoon Housing and Environmental Forum meetings on a regular basis, and the next meeting is scheduled for today, 23 April, when details of the pilot scheme will be discussed and the Partnership Charter initiated. Given the time of this Adjournment debate, I imagine that the meeting has concluded — at least, I hope that the meeting has concluded.
In addition to the pilot scheme, Roads Service plans to implement four further schemes in west Belfast during the current financial year, all of which have a high priority under the standard assessment criteria. The Edenmore Drive area is to be granted a 20 mph zone, including the provision of road humps. Gardenmore Road in Twinbrook will be given road humps, as will Summerhill Drive in Twinbrook. Suffolk Road will be given central islands and road markings.
West Belfast has been widely treated with traffic-calming measures for which the total expenditure has been £454,000 since 1995. In total, 17 schemes comprising 104 streets have been treated with various measures, the most common being road humps.
Our current programme for the next two years, that is 2001-02 and 2002-03, for west Belfast totals a further estimated £200,000, with nine schemes comprising 26 streets due to be treated. This programme is preliminary, and further areas may be added as resources permit. I think it was Mr McFarland who guessed that I might mention that resources were inadequate to enable us to carry out all the schemes that have been suggested. Indeed, that is the case.
The schemes that have been carried out both in west Belfast and generally across Northern Ireland have been very successful. For example, in 1996-97 five schemes were carried out on 25 streets. In those streets there had been an average of 10·6 accidents a year over the five-year period prior to treatment. In the three years after completion of the work, the accident rate has reduced significantly to an average of 3·7 accidents per year — that equates to a reduction of almost two thirds.
Members can appreciate, however, that a wide range of factors can cause traffic accidents, and it would be wrong to assume that speed control measures, in their various forms, can create an accident-free zone.
Traffic-calming measures are, of course, not confined to west Belfast. I would like to give the House some equivalent figures for Northern Ireland. Since 1995, £6·1 million has been spent Province-wide on traffic calming, with 191 schemes completed. Since traffic-calming schemes were implemented in the three-year period from 1995-96 through to 1997-98, 121 fewer accidents have occurred in Northern Ireland than the yearly average prior to the work’s commencing.
There are many different types of measures used to calm traffic. I will not go into the details today, but they are described in the traffic-calming leaflet that I introduced two weeks ago. The leaflet is available from any Roads Service office. Suffice it to say that one of the most effective speed control measures is the road hump. These are normally considered for residential streets where the main objective is to reduce average vehicle speeds to approximately 20 mph.
Where there is a self-contained network of streets and self-enforcing measures such as road humps can be provided, it may be appropriate to introduce a 20 mph speed limit zone. We have implemented two 20 mph zones in west Belfast since 1995, namely the Riverdale Park area in 1996, and the Ballymurphy/Glenalina area in 1998. This year, Turf Lodge has been traffic calmed, and a 20 mph speed limit will be introduced shortly following the completion of the legislative process. A further zone is due to commence shortly in the Edenmore area between Glen Road and Andersonstown Road. That will increase the number of 20 mph zones to four.
In total, Roads Service has now implemented eight 20 mph zones throughout Northern Ireland. Sufficient measures must be provided in the area to ensure that the scheme is self-enforcing before a 20 mph speed limit can be considered. Signs in isolation have been found to be very ineffective.
In concluding, I want to deal with some of the issues raised by various Members in the debate. A number of Members referred to future development, both in the greater west Belfast area and in other parts of Northern Ireland. It should be acknowledged that in the future, where extensive plans are being finalised, Roads Service will, as a policy, insist on measures that will assist with traffic calming and speed control being included as an essential part of that development.
Mr McFarland referred to an interdepartmental approach on the social issues arising. That is an issue that I will consider. I will respond after having considered that adequately.
There were a number of other issues regarding the disproportionate number of accidents in the greater west Belfast area. I have no figures either to prove or disprove that. The required criteria are a contentious issue, and I know that because local residents complain that there have to be a number of accidents before consideration will be given to traffic calming. At the moment, I am getting 10 times more applications than there are resources to complete them, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is more prudent to deploy that small amount of resources into areas where there have been accidents, rather than into areas where there have not been accidents.
I will look at the issue of disproportionate numbers of accidents. If it is the case that there are a higher number of accidents, then any area with a higher number of accidents should find itself in the front line in terms of getting traffic calming. That is one of the esssential criteria.
I understand that there is an issue with regard to increasing traffic volumes, and again that meets a set of the criteria.
The issue of saving lives and not money was raised. I hope that the announcement that I made two weeks ago, in which not only did my Department devise the traffic-calming initiative, but we managed to increase the amount of expenditure on traffic calming by 30%, shows that both my Department and I take the issue of saving lives very seriously. That is why we have deployed as much as we have, and I want to deploy more. If I had a 1,000% increase in resources, we might get close to doing all of the requested schemes.
An issue was also raised about civil servants not meeting with public representatives. Where public representatives request relevant meetings with civil servants, I will be happy to ensure that civil servants attend those meetings. I understand that the meeting was to do with anti-social activity and car theft, which is a matter primarily for the RUC. I would be quite happy to instruct my officials to go along to such a meeting, which would include representatives of the RUC.
In conclusion, I want to emphasise that the aim of self-enforcing traffic-calming measures is to ensure that vehicles are driven at speeds appropriate to the local conditions. Such measures should not be seen as the answer to all road safety problems. It is only with an integrated approach, involving engineering measures, road safety education, research and enforcement, together with a change in attitude on the part of some road users, that the road safety problems on all our streets can be addressed effectively.
Adjourned at 5.57 pm